Talk:State religion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"None since independence"

For those countries who are designated with "none since independence", is the early 1990s independence from the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia what is intended? I ask because, in reality they should be designated as "none since 19xx" where 19xx is the date of communist takeover, when any existing state churches would have been disestablished? Is this not more or less correct? Thanks --Dpr 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Russian state religion

I'm doubting this claim quite a lot: The Russian Federation recognizes the Russian Orthodox Church, the main sub-branch of the greater Eastern Orthodox Church, as well as Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam as all "official" and "indigenous" to Russian soil.

The reason for this is because I don't think it belongs in that section. That section lists countries where a certain church is established and official. In Russia, no church is established or official. There is a significant difference between establishment and governmental recognition. Some governments recognise certain religions as being indigenous to a country, or having a significant amount of members, and hence these churches receive the right to form their own schools, to get government funding (in the same way cultural institutions do), etc. But that doesn't mean that every one of those churches is a "state religion". State religion implies a deeper sense of connection between the state and religion, and I think Russia, while not fully secular, is pretty much without a state religion, the Russian Orthodox Church being disestablished in 1917. Ronline 13:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

North Korea?

This may sound a bit nutty, but people have described the idea of 'Juche' to be North Koreas state religion (although being a communist country it is nominally atheist). Given that all subjects of North Korea are compelled to follow this belief system, there are more people in this pseudo-religion than there are Jews and Sikhs in the world, and both these are considered world religions. Should This be mentioned in the article? Damburger 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Georgia's state religion

Hi. A user has recently added Georgia in the list of states with the Eastern Orthodox Church as their state religion. I have removed this, since Georgia does not have any official state religion - rather the Orthodox Church is separated from the state and is not mentioned as "official religion", but simply as having a special contribution to the foundation of the country. The constitution of Georgia states, "The state recognises the special importance of the Georgian Orthodox Church in Georgian history but simultaneously announces complete freedom in religious belief and the independence of the church from the state." Therefore, the GOC is not a state religion (i.e. it is neither influenced by the state nor established as the "national religion of Georgia"). Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Georgian Orthodox and Apostolic Church is the only religious organisation in Georgia recognised by the state. All others including the Catholic Church have to pay taxes. The Partiarch issues the blessing to the whole parlament after elections including the deputies who are not member of the Georgian Orthodox Church. So it is de-facto an established church. Ulf-S. 11:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A "state religion" doesn't just mean where the church is influenced by the state. It can also mean where the state is influenced by the Church. What you quoted in the Constitution there seems to say that the state has no influence over the Church. It doesn't say the Church has no influence over the state; apparently it does, and no other church does. So this is more of a state religion than most. It should be re-added. You also need sources for the other countries you removed. (Myanmar, Nepal, Azerbaijan) as I'm sure they were originally added with good reason. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Constitution of Nepal declare Nepal to be a "Hindu Kingdom", how much more clearly does it have to be spelled out for you? It should be re-added. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the notion of a state religion is very subtle and complex, and due to this there are bound to be controversies, particularly over interpretation. But I'll outline my case regarding the following countries:

• Georgia - the constitution states that church is independent from the state, and that there is complete freedom of religion. Additionally, no mention is made of the GOC being the official/national/state religion of the republic. I suppose that the elements outlined by Ulf S above make it a de-facto state religion, and it would be good if this is mentioned. I've got to do more research on this, it is still "in flux". UPDATE: According to [1], the GOC does receive a number of benefits not offered to other churches, even though, recently, other religious groups are allowed to register officially. I believe this is reasonable grounds to include Georgia as de-facto Orthodox, making a mention of how the GOC received numerous benefits over other churches in practice, despite the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned as the state religion.
• Nepal - I didn't remove Nepal, I just explained that the case is more complex than just listing Nepal under a bullet point. There are no countries of the world that have Hinduism as an established religion. Rather, Nepal recognises itself as a Hindu Kingdom (this does not mean that the Hindu faith has any influence on the state). So, I've mentioned this, as well as the fact that, officially, Nepal has no established religion.
• Azerbaijan - this country is very secular, with its separation between church and state based on Turkey's model. The Constitution of Azerbaijan states that "religion shall be separated from the State in the Republic of Azerbaijan. All religions shall be equal by law. The spread and propaganda of religions which humiliate human dignity and contradict the principles of humanity shall be banned. The State education system shall be of secular character." So, there is no mention of any particular religion, while secularism is mentione as a principle. That is why Azerbaijan should be listed as officially-secular.
• Myanmar - According to [2], "There is no official state religion; however, in practice the Government continued to show a preference for Theravada Buddhism." This is where the problem becomes subtle and controversial. If a country does not officially recognise any religion as being its state religion, but implicitly promotes one religion over the other, does this still amount to that religion being a "state religion"? I would say "No", since, for example, many countries (such as Spain and Poland), mention the contribution that a particular religion had to that country, while not necessarily having an established church (another example is Georgia, above).

Thanks, Ronline ✉ 05:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

State Religion and India

In the article India is in state without any Religion and treat all religion equally and hence The Prime Minister of India and Head of the Constitution the President of India greet yearly more than 24 times the citizens on various occasion of Religious Day such as Holi, Deepawali, Ede, Birth day of Religious Head, etc. Similarly Prime Minister of India and President of India visit the various Religious Places officially and same become the Press News for All citizens. I do not believe in Religion and hate the Religion. I consider the religion as myth subject. Wen the Head of the State visit religious place officially and Greet the nation on any religion day should not be kept on State without any Religion because Head of the State do this job at the cost of those who do not belive in Religion also. Since there is no article of Separation of State and religion on wikipedia, I request the reader of this talk to give any reference where I can read State and Religion. vkvora 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The search functions powerful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state User:Shauntp 06:30, 22 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.208.11 (talk)

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the US

The article says":"Since 1960s, the United States Supreme Court has held that this later provision incorporates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as applying to the States" This was done in 1947 accoring to [[3]] It says: "Establishment of Religion Everson v. Board of Education (1947)" I'm changing 1960's to 1947.Gerard von Hebel 18:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations for the Theodosius edict

Sources seem to disagree on 392 v 391 as the date, most support 392.

392 sites

• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/greece/paganism/paganism.html

• http://www.romeartlover.it/Storia12.html#Theodosius

• http://www.wcer.org/members/europe/Greece/persec.htm

391 Sites

• http://www.legionxxiv.org/imperialtimeline/

This one says two edicts issued one 391, one in 391

• http://www.san.beck.org/AB10-RomanPower285-395.html

I hope this is how I'm to handle the 'citation' need tag.... Bo 18:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This needs to be cleaned up. We need to have clear criteria and citations for what is a state church -- the de facto state church of most of South America, Autria and Italy could be said to be Catholicism along the same lines of the arguments for Armenia and Georgia; and many of the mentions in Islam are also not "official religions"... Help? —Nightstallion (?) 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is clear criteria established in the introduction (it says, "officially endorsed"), but the list doesn't appear to follow that criteria. Therefore, any nation that does not have a de jure state church or state religion should not be included in the explicit category for state churches. I suggest that we reorganize the article with two headings: Countries with a state religion and perhaps Countries with de facto state religions, although I'm a little iffy on whether that would imply non-NPOV. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 18:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of completely removing those countries who do not officially have a state religion. Everything else is WP:OR and WP:NPOV, I believe; we should also cite the respective constitutions or laws, where possible, to satisfy WP:V. —Nightstallion (?) 19:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright- I'm doing it then. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 19:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good! :) —Nightstallion (?) 05:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This page needs to be completely remade to be useful. Just because a constitution mentions a particular church or religion it doesn´t mean it is the state religion. A term less ambiguous than "endorse" should be used. Probably that would mean creating different pages but I don´t see how can you put the Vatican or Iran in the same bag with Argentina or Norway. Most of the countries under "Jurisdictions which recognize Catholicism as their official religion" in fact do not do so and I don´t think this is debatable (since we are not talking about the real situation but about oficial proclamations). A quick overview for latin-american countries is here http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Comp/Estado/iglesia.html (it is in spanish, however, you can consult the articles in english at the same site)

Sri Lanka

An IP added this to the list of Buddhist countries... although I saw no evidence for this in both the Sri Lanka article and the Religion in Sri Lanka article. Anyone verify this? ekrub-ntyh ^talk 23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Scotland

Where is the year of 1929 coming from for Scotland? And surely it warrant at least a note, what with it still being the official church, if not under the control of the state.80.168.29.18 10:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The only relevance of 1929 to the Church of Scotland is that it is the year when the United Free Church merged back into it. However, this did not change it's legal status. Whilst not a "standard" established church, the Church of Scotland still *is* an Established Church. The Church of Scotland Act 1921 gave it full freedom in Spiritual issues, although it did not change its status as an national church - so it is in fact both Established and Free. As such, I've removed the date from the table. --The Thieving Gypsy 17:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

When status of countries in Europe or Asia changes...

...and, if it appears to be verified, I wonder if editors could also make the corresponding changes to the relevant sections of the articles Europe and Asia? Thanks! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Greece has no state religion

Orthodox christianity is described by the Greek constitution as the dominant/prevailing religion, because at least nominally the great majority of Greeks belong to this. Nevertheless it is NOT the state religion, Greece has no such thing as state religion whatsoever. This should be made clear in the page.

http://www.hri.org/docs/syntagma/artcl25.html#A3

XVA 23:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

---

--193.65.112.65 12:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC) This page should be merged with State church. - Efghij 03:14, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This page has repeats entire sections several times. This needs to be fixed

---

This isn't true at all. China has a set of official state religious organizations. Trying to worship outside the state organizations will bring various degrees of official disapproval ranging from tolerance (in the case of a lot of Buddhist monasteries, Islamic temples, and local folk deities) to moderate harrassment (in the case of Protestant house churches and Vatican sponsored Catholicism) to totally state opposition (in the case of Falugong).

This page defines a state religion as "state religion (also called an established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state", therefore atheism is the state religion of china, cuba etc, and juche can probably be classified as the state religion of North Korea. - Unsigned

The section on the US does not seem to me to be NPOV. --ukexpat 13:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked, and did not see any section on the US in the article. There is a bit of info about the US in the section on Disestablishment, and the info presented there seems NPOV to me. -- Boracay Bill 23:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Placing of {{POV-statement}} tag questioned

This edit placed the tag thusly: "[[Catholic]] Christianity, as opposed to Arianism and other heretical{{POV-statement}} and schismatic groups, was declared to be the state religion of the [[Roman Empire]] on [[February 27]] [[380]]"

As I read this, the assertion that Arianism, etc. is/are heretical is being labeled as a {{POV-statement}}.

The Heresy article says: "Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a "theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox."

The Animism article says, in part: "[...] In a more restrictive sense, animism is the belief that souls inhabit all or most objects; it attributes personalized souls to animals, vegetables, and minerals wherein the material object is—to some degree—governed by the qualities which comprise its particular soul."

It appears clear to me that Animism, at least in the restrictive sense described above, falls within the class comprising things heretical.

Or do I misunderstand? -- Boracay Bill 23:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The line refers to Arianism. And "heresy" has the common meaning of "false religious doctrine" (especially since "orthodox" has the common meaning, as well as referring to certain denominations, of "true religious doctrine.") It doesn't matter if the line refers to the former or the latter, as written it is biased.

I suggest saying "... and other doctrines condemned as heretical." Jacob Haller 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Macedonia

Niether the Republic of Macedonia nor the Macedonian Orthodox Church existed in 1797. Unless someone can justify this I will delete this entry. User: Personalbest 8/27/07 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted it Personalbest 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this very article the MOC is currently established Personalbest 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Established churches and former state churches

The table in this section should probably be adjusted; the inclusion of colspan'ed rows breaks sortable on the past couple of columns. -- Schneelocke 12:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

fixed. --Boracay Bill 01:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Canada: Officially Monotheist?

I just read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, affirmed by the Constitution Act, 1982. The Preamble states: Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law[...][4]. Insofar as I'm reading that statement, that means that Canada is officially monotheist, if not explicitly Western Monotheist/Abrahamic although the document states that it respects freedom of religion. Does everyone else agree? samwaltz 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Godlessgeeks has gone to heaven?

The ref "State Constitutions that Discriminate Against Atheists. www.godlessgeeks.com. Retrieved on 2007-04-27." is not the best choice. Mostly because the godlessgeeks.com website has been down for at least a week now. Benkeboy 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... no. I just checked. godlessgeeks/Atheists of Silicon Valley is still up and running. samwaltz 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Possibly missing

Laos, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, Peru: see here. Biruitorul (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

State religion and official religion...

...these terms are not synonims. Indeed "state religion" or better "State Church" is a qualification which doesn't mean that this church is official (for example in Switzerland, in many cantons both the Catholic Church and the Evangelical-Reformed Church are State/Cantonal/Regional Churches, in some others also the Old Catholic Church has this status), while "official religion" means more. Swiss Cantons, German States, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden until 2000, England and Scotland have a State Church, but none of them have an official religion established by the State. This would be unconstitutional because it would obey to the principle of neutrality of the State.

I'm fairly certain that the Swedish constitution, which requires the head-of-state to confess the "pure evangelical doctrine", does not recognize any principle of neutrality of the State wrt religion. Orcoteuthis (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Silvio Ferrari - Ivan Iban, Dititto e religione in Europa occidentale, Il Mulino, Bologna 1997; Sandro Cattacin - Cla Reto Famos - Michael Duttwiler - Hans Mahnig, Stato e religione in Svizzera - lotte per il riconoscimento, forme di riconoscimento, Forum Svizzero per lo studio delle migrazioni e della popolazione, Bern 2003; Vincenzo Pacillo, Stato, individui e fenomeno religioso nella nuova Costituzione federale e nelle più recenti Costituzioni cantonali svizzere, "Quaderni di diritto e politica ecclesiastica", n. 1, April 2001; Vincenzo Pacillo, La democratizzazione delle Confessioni religiose nella Confederazione elvetica, "Rivista Daimon", 2001.

The page is heavily incorrect. --Checco 11:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Swiss Cantons:

• Argau, Basel-Country and Bern have three State/Cantonal Churches: the Roman Catholic Church, the Swiss Reformed Church and the Old Catholic Church;
• Graubunden, Uri, Schwytz, Glarus and Thurgau have two State/Cantonal Churches: the Roman Catholic Church and the Swiss Reformed Church;
• Nidwald has only a State/Cantonal Church: the Roman Catholic Church;
• Zurich has only a State/Cantonal Church: the Swiss Reformed Church.

The other cantons recognize to some Churches and religious communities (the Jewish Community in S. Gallen, Basel-City, Bern and Freiburg) the status of "public-law corporation". Also the cantons mentioned before give this status to other religious communities which aren't State Churches (an example? Bern). Only Geneve and Neuchatel are separatist cantons. --Checco 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I made some of the changes I considered urgently necessary. --Checco 12:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Religion vs. Church vs Mosque

I've just reverted the change of a section heading from "Established churches and former state churches" to "Established churches or mosque and former state churches".

Aside from the grammatical error of difference in number (singular mosque vs. plural churches), there's a problem of the word "Church" having multiple meanings. "Church" can refer to a building or structure wherein religious services are held, as can "Mosque". "Church" can also refer to an ecclesiastical organization, while "Mosque" can not.

In the section heading reverted, "Church" was being used in the second sense. However, its usage in that sense was apparently taken by some editor to not include Islamic ecclesiastical organizations. Perhaps it's worthwhile to edit the article to use the world "religion" when referring to religions, the words "religious organization" or some such when referring to an ecclesiastical organization rather than using "Church" and leaving the door open to an inference by non-Christians that their religion is being slighted -- either that, or explain early-on in the article "The word 'Church', as used in this article, refers to ...". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indonesia

There have been a couple of edits to this article lately regarding Religion in Indonesia lately. Hoping to shortcut an edit war, I'll note that Constitution of Indonesia#Chapter XI: Religion says,"The nation is based on belief in God, but the state guarantees religious freedom for all.", and Chapter XI (Article 29) of The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia says, in part, "The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The article Establishment of religion covers exactly the same ground as this, with the exception of detailed discussion that appears Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In fact that article was long merged with this until someone decided the merge was vandalism. The article seems to be the result of the mistaken belief that the term "establishment of religion" was another word for "religious organisation" (it gave the analogy of "hairdressing establishment"). This isn't true and the article is unnecessary and not well-written. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. Doesn't seem to be anything worth salvaging on the other page. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You did it rather prematurely. Usually one waits for the discussion to conclude (much less commence) before declaring a result. Be patient, things move very slow on these lesser pages (nobody is actively editing them on an hourly basis). You should wait until some discussions plays out before making unilateral changes. This should probably have an WP:RFC as well so the larger community becomes involved.

That said, the problem with the merge is that it invites POV. "State Religion" is but one aspect of the phrase "Establisment of Religion," they are not synonymous terms. In the United States there is a particular POV that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers only to a prohibition on state religions. However, this viewpoint is not generally accepted (by the courts or by the public) and is certainly too controversial to list as fact on Wikipedia.

I agree that the article has serous problems and is very poorly written in many sections, but redirects aren't meant to solve editing problems. Careful editing is the prescription there. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

One more note, since you are proposing a delete and redirect of the article, you will actually have to go through the WP:AFD process if you wish to eliminate this article. To do it otherwise, and without discussion can be considered vandalism and result in blocking of your account. Try to get some consensus before making the changes again.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Loonymonkey, regarding your edit comments. You are incorrect: the proper place to start a merge discussion is the merge to article, not the merge from article (see Wikipedia:MERGE). This article was a redirect for a long time without anyone objecting. After two days, nobody had said anything. I am not obliged to wait for someone else to comment - this is a major article with many contributors who could have responded if they objected. You appear to have been editing regularly since I commenced the discussion and have had plenty of time to object. I suggest you think carefully before you use words like vandalism - see WP:VANDAL if you need a definition ("Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling a person making such edits a "vandal", discuss his or her specific edits with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of his or her edits or arguments, not his or her person."). You should also be aware that a merge is not the same as a delete and that when you are reverted you should take the signal to discuss.

2. On the subject of the redirect: you need to make your mind up about whether this article is about the phrase "establishment of religion" used in the US Constitution or about established churches. You're right to say it's not the same thing. If it is about the former, discussion of state religions in, for example, Arab countries does not belong in the article and there is already an article on the subject. If it is about the latter, an established church is the same as a state church and the article should be merged to State religion. Given that the phrase "establishment of religion" (as opposed to "established religion" which redirects here) is basically a quote from the US constitution, I have no objection to redirecting to Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (and you say you have no objection to redirecting) but I do disagree with the implication of what you say: that a completely inaccurate article is better than no article. There is nothing this article could possibly say that wouldn't be pure duplication.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge 2

There seems to be significant overlap between this article and Established church. Would it be appropriate that the latter article be merged in here? This might help reinforce the distinction between a national religion (e.g. Catholicism in Argentina) and a religious body controlled by a state (e.g. the Church of England). On the other hand, this article is getting a bit long already. Suggestions are welcome... OttoTheFish (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus seriously flawed here

Eastern Orthodox Church is definitely not a state religion in Cyprus any more than it is in the Lebanon. Cyprus has entirely separate church and state. There are a number of religious communities that are recognized. It is recognized that the Turks are Moslems and are entitled to the Evkef lands as being their own; the Armenians, Latins, and Maronites are recognized as being religious minorities in the Greek community. Actually the 1960 Constitution is no different really to the type the Lebanon has had since 1933. Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71375.htm Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again I would like to ask whoever keeps adding that the Church of Cyprus is the state religion, and vandalizes my editing, to find a SOURCE for it, like I have done, which says it is NOT Eugene-elgato (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the one revert I did - I called it "unexplained anon edit" but I didn't catch the fact that an explanation was indeed added here a minute earlier. Since you have at least explained the blanking, I will not revert you any longer and will leave it to others who might research this area. Sorry again. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

:$ lol its OK my friend, I get hot headed when I want to make a point! it's all good, thanks for making sure as well (Y) Eugene-elgato (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bolivia no longer has state religion

According to the new constitution:

Artículo 4 El Estado respeta y garantiza la libertad de religión y de creencias espirituales, de acuerdo con sus cosmovisiones. El Estado es independiente de la religión.

Article 4

The state respects and guarantees the liberty of religion and of spiritual beliefs, according to its world view. The state is independent from the religion.

So...the map needs to be updated. Also, as I said before, Slovakia has no state religion and needs to be removed from the list.

Daniel32708 (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)daniel32708

El Salvador Has No State Religion

Art. 26.- Se reconoce la personalidad jurídica de la Iglesia Católica. Las demás iglesias podrán obtener, conforme a la ley, el reconocimiento de su personalidad.

Article 26 -The Legal Person of the Catholic Church is recognized. The rest of the churches could obtain, according to the law, the recognizing of their personality.

This means that the state recognizes the catholic church, but does not have it as a state religion. The map needs to be updated, along with bolivia and slovakia. Daniel32708 (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)daniel32708

Ibid: and CyprusEugene-elgato (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it from the list, along with bolivia, but map needs to be updated please Daniel32708 (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)daniel32708

Spain

This article said that Catholicism is Spain's state church, and I know that Spaniards may choose to pay church tithes on their tax forms. However, article 16(3) of the Constitution of Spain says,

No religion shall have a state character. The public powers shall take into account the religious beliefs of Spanish society and maintain the appropriate relations of cooperation, with the Catholic Church and other denominations.

- Montréalais 01:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an establishment where I come from; but a footnote might be enough.Septentrionalis 23:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

- No. In Germany, there is no established church, but the government collects taxes for certain churches, namely, I think, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran and Reformed churches of the Evangelical Church in Germany, and the Old Catholic Church. Carolynparrishfan 17:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That's right; you have to declare yourself outside of these churches if you were baptized in them, in order to cease paying such taxes. Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha-Ha-Ha!

"States without any state religion These states do not profess any state religion and attempt to treat all religions equally. Countries which officially decline to establish any religion include: * France * Turkey"

Both countries treat muslims badly, they ban islamic-required clotches and muslims are removed from public office if they follow Muhammad's traditions. Turkey is atheist, at least the army, which is in effective control of the ottoman county via the many coup'd etats in past decades, requires all officers to be atheists and they have oppressive state control over selection of muslim clergy, so only the neither fowl, nor fish can speak in mosques. France has the shameful headscarf law.

Therefore neither France, nor Turkey can be said to "treat all religions equally". Muslims are less than equal. the description should be changed. 195.70.32.136 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We can't put in personal opinions. shauntp 18:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the 'Officially Decline' is the key phrase. Best I reacll, France has been 'Officially anti-establishment' since the Reign of Terror. The Scarves Laws are "Officially" to protect the Muslims from the locals and their anti-muslim prejudice, while giving the Muslim women the cover of 'obeying the law' when challenged by fellow Muslims. As for Turkey, the Turks I meet expalined that the 'covering up' was an Arab thing, not a Muslim thing. Again though 'Officially' is often different from 'in reality'. The United Kingdom is 'Officially' Anglican, but it is very secular country. Bo

As a trivial side issue, I'm reminded of the jokes column from an issue of The Edinburgh Courier from 1853:

Question: - Why is the King of France more powerful than the Pope?

Answer: - The Pope must govern through his Bulls, while the King of France can make a single coo dae it a'

Ha-Ha-Ha! indeed... dave souza, talk 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

France does treat all religions equally under law. The "headscarf law" is simply a law against obvious religious signs, including large Christian crosses, Jewish stars and Muslim headscarves. Muslims are not treated worse in this respect than any other religion; in fact, that law just confirms the secular nature of France and the fact that it has no established religion. Ronline ✉ 05:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:State churches (Christian)

I have created the Category:State churches (Christian) for Christian state (established) churches. If anyone thinks this ought be be renamed, perhaps we could discuss it here--or likewise if anyone wants to support it. Should we create corresponding categories for other religions (Islam, Buddhism, etc.)? Frankly they are not precisely the same...and state Catholicism is problematic as well. Should all state religions be integrated into one category? Thanks. --Dpr 02:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Category:State churches is sufficiently disambiguated; the state religion of (say) Saudi Arabia is certainly not a church. However, an all-inclusive Category:State religions should be about right for a good cat, and avoid the problem entirely. Septentrionalis 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Dump the christian bit at the end. shauntp 06:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shauntp (talk • contribs)

States without a state religion

I added Albania to the list, because Albania haven't a official religion. --Dessy92 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Source

Jonathan Fox, A World Survey of Religion and the State, Cambridge University Press, 2008, is a specialized study published by a leading university, so it would presumably rank high as a reliable source, subject to the qualification that it covers mainly the period 1990-2002. In particular, it preesumably uses a consistent concept of "official religion", though at a quick examination I can't find it spelled out. In contrast, the current article seems to be mainly based on primary sources using a variety of different terminologies. For reference, here are its listings:

• Christian
  • Catholic: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Malta, Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Domonican Republic
  • Protestant
    • Lutheran: Denmark, Iceland, Norway
  • Eastern Orthodox: Greece
  • Oriental Orthodox: Armenia
  • 2 state churches
    • Lutheran & Eastern Orthodox: Finland
    • Anglican & Presbyterian: UK
  • unspecified: Zambia
• Muslim
  • Sunni: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, UAE, W Sahara, Comoros, Djibouti, Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan
  • Shia (Ithna'ashari): Iran
  • unspecified: Iraq (this refers to the Saddam period, so is no doubt irrelevant now anyway), Yemen (possibly the Zaidi branch of the Shia, which are a major tradition there)
• Buddhist
  • Drugpa: Bhutan
  • Theravada: Cambodia, Sri Lanka
• Jewish: Israel

Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The above arrangement, I should add, is my own. As you might have guessed from careful examination, the book lists countries alphabetically within regions. I may have been guilty of some minor miscategorization, because the tables have separate columns for majority religion & whether a state has an official religion. They don't explicitly state what it is, so there may be cases where it's actually only "Christian" or "Muslim" rather than "Catholic" or "Sunni". I've checked only a few cases. Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Philippines

I reverted the addition of a note reading "(Roman Catholic Church is a de facto state religion)". The definition of State religion in the lead sentence is, "A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state." Article II, Section 6 of the RP constitution says, "The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. ". Article II, Section 5 says, "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." The CIA Factbook - PH reports under Religions, "Roman Catholic 80.9%, Muslim 5%, Evangelical 2.8%, Iglesia ni Kristo 2.3%, Aglipayan 2%, other Christian 4.5%, other 1.8%, unspecified 0.6%, none 0.1% (2000 census)". Roman Catholicism is the religion of a significant majority of the population, but the assertion that it is a "de facto state religion" would need to cite solid supporting sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Merge

Guys, there is much confussion and mess with the terms of Established religion, State religion, and recognized religion. The articles regarding this subject are all messed up and full of mistakes. I propose we merge them, and create a single article that discusses the difference among those terms. It can include a map with colors for each status of a religion in a country (recognized or state religion). What do you think? Daniel32708 (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)daniel32708

That sounds super to me! Go for it!! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this is a really good point. There are loads of different things that can get confused. Lots of countries simply have recognized religions, some have state religion, some official or national religion. Also within the muslim countries there is surely a difference between an Islamic State and a country with Islam as the state religion. I reckon the following are the only Islamic states: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the Maldives, Somalia [if it does have a state still], and some Nigerian states. Some countries have a state religion, but other official and semi state religions. If you look at the example of Greece, the Orthodox Church of Greece is the prevailing national religion in the constitution, and it also is bound up with the state. the Roman catholic church's dioceses are recognized; the chief rabbi is recognized, and the chief mufti is a state office and a civil servant just like all the Orthodox bishops are in some sense civil servants. But this could lead to absurdity because in Turkey which follows laicite, there is recognition of only four religions, and Islam being one of them is held under the Ministry of religion. it is confusing Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that is why a merge of this kind would be very useful and would simplify many things. Daniel32708 (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)daniel32708

Sounds good to me too.

1. Pick a merge-to article name.
2. Create the merge-to article.
3. Move this discussion to the talk page of the merge-to article.
4. Discuss the merger on the merge-to article talk page.
5. As merge-from candidates are identified, place {{Mergefrom}} and {{Mergeto}} templates.
6. Merge articles, IAW discussion results.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is this going to happen or is there still some debate going on? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hungary not 1848, but 1946!

The roman catholic church was not truly dis-established in Hungary until 1946! The 1848-49 dis-establishement came to nothing due to the fall of revolution and defeat in the national liberation war. The Habsburgs (1849 to 1918) reinstalled the popian religion into power. The same situation remained under the Horthy-regime (1920-1944), the so-called kingless kingdom period, when the Holy Crown of Hungary nominally ruled.

The arcbishop of Esztergom officially held the title of "hercegprimas" (archiduke-cardinal) and was not stripped of the title until early 1946, when monarchy was abolished on soviet instruction and the republic, then "people's republic" was declared in the new hungarian constitution. József Mindszenty hercegprimas continued to use his abolished title even after that. He fled to exile in the US Embassy building in Budapest in 1956 and then on to West Germany, not willing to accept church dis-establishement and communist state control over religions.

Hungary has remained fully secular ever since. Practice of old religions is very low percentage today, but newish cults skyrocket, even the shameful scientology scam can operate unhindered and has large influence in the government since mid-2002. Hit Gyulekezet (means Congregation of Faith) is another popular new scam religion used to collect loads of money by fake hungarian gurus. local TV programmes are markedly atheist and have no problem with wildest sex or violence after 10PM. Hungary has world's 3rd largest porn movie film industry, located in Budapest.

The only money catholics have received from the state since 1990 is the compensation for many buildings and lands which the communist regime forcibly confiscated from the churches in 1949-1953. People have the right to donate 1% of yearl their income tax to any religion. If they wish not, it goes to a state fund used for crop-dusting the massively widespread and troublesome allergic plant "ragweed" to prevent hay fever.

Thanks for your attention, Sincerely: Tamas Feher from Budapest, Hungary. 91.82.34.141 (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To make it better explained how catholic church was not dis-eastablished until 1946, let me put this example: Governor Miklos Horthy (ruled 1920-1944) was a calvinist protestant, therefore the roman catholic church demanded and obtained a guarantee law such that the hungarian prime minister must be a practicing roman catholic male at all times and all catholic bishops automatically receive a seat in the upper house of hungarian parliament. For this reason the Horthy-regime of 1920-1944 is often called a neo-feudalist state system. This was abolished in 1946 and after wards prime ministers (called "minisztertanacs elnoke" in hungarian) all became diehard-atheists during the 1948-1989 communist rule. 91.82.34.141 (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit popped up on my watchlist, and I notice wikitext errors. The details being discussed above are not within my expertise, but it sourds like a supporting source should be cited. A little googling turned this up. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Church of Hawaii

Would it be appropriate to include a mention of the Anglican Church of Hawaii which was the Hawai'ian state religion from 1862-1893? Orville Eastland (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Armenia

The Armenian church isn't Eastern Orthodox, it's Oriental Orthodox. Peter jackson (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Armenia do not have a state religion. The Article 8.1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia (the amended 2005 version, not the original 1995 version that is in Wikisource) states: "The church shall be separate from the state in the Republic of Armenia"

Although it recognizes the special role of the national Armenian Apostolic Church

"The Republic of Armenia recognizes the exclusive historical mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church as a national church, in the spiritual life, development of the national culture and preservation of the national identity of the people of Armenia."

Thus, I believe Armenia should removed from the list of countries with state religion. 128.151.240.125 23:09, 02 May 2010 (UTC)

Tax exempt status = State religion?!?!?

There's an assertion towards the end of the article that because religious institutions are tax exempt in many countries, they're "funded" by the governments of those countries, and, because it's in this article, it seems to imply that they constitute state religions...just because they're tax exempt. I'm not religious, but I find this assertion to be patently absurd, religious institutions receive tax exemptions in many countries because

1. they do charitable work or socially useful work, such as aid to the poor or education;
2. of the separation of religion and state, that government interference into religious matters includes the taxation of religious institutions, and is therefore contrary to separation of religion and state.

I fail to see how tax exemptions for religious institutions constitutes "state religion". Katana0182 —Preceding comment was added at 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's only in "Additional notes" section, and it also states "However, these religions are not established as state religions".--207.112.62.86 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "In some cases, a state may have a set of state-sponsored religious denominations that it funds; such is the case in Alsace-Moselle in France, following the pattern in Germany" in the paragraph on "Types of state churches" also suggests that churches are state funded in these countries - which, at least as Germany is concerned, is just plain wrong (though you will find even many Germans who believe it). Churches get state money for only two reasons:

1. as a compensation for former expropriation (for those who read German: "Bei den Staatsleistungen handelt es sich um rechtliche Verpflichtungen der Bundesländer, die ihre Ursache in staatlichen Enteignungen kirchlicher Ländereien vor 1918 haben." [5]),
2. when they take on responsibilities that actually fall within the duties of the state (for instance, certain areas of charitable work).

The so-called "church taxes" are NOT state funding (or vice versa) but simply a way of collecting a membership fee with the least possible waste of money in extra administrative machinery.

So, while I cannot speak for the system in Alsace-Moselle, talking about "state-sponsored religious denominations" or "state funding" for churches is definitely wrong as far as Germany is concerned. Anna (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. The German state does fund the large Christian churches, e.g. the bishops' incomes are paid for by the state. And paying compensation for expropriations occurring before 1918 can hardly be justified IMO when many 1945-1949 expropriations are not compensated in any way. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your information. Can you provide any evidence for your claim that the bishops' incomes are supposed to be paid for by the state? To the best of my knowledge this is just plain wrong.

I am not exactly sure which 1945-1949 expropriations you are thinking of (there have been expropriations at many times, before 1945 and after 1949), but on the other hand, I don't really think it matters. In the first place, weighing wrongs against each other will not get us anywhere, and in the second place, Wikipedia does not seem the place to be deciding on these things. --Anna (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland II

No Swiss Canton has a State religion. Recognition by public law does not mean recognition as state religion. Please do not add it again. --Freigut (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

State_church#Former_state_churches_in_British_North_America

This is wrong. Established church in all colonies was Anglican, mostly just until the Revolution. It would be better to outline the quality of the church in respect to individual colonies. For instance, Massachusetts/Connecticut/New Hampshire/Vermont were all Congregational Anglicans. Nature of clerical government whether Episcopal and Arminian or Congregational and Calvinist, did not change the fact that they were all Anglican. Puritans were not Separatists, because they wanted to "Reform" the Anglican Church from within. Separatist Pilgrims founded Plymouth Colony, which was originally independent from Massachusetts on account of it being the older dominion. Where is the special case recognition of Plymouth Brownists, Rhode Island Baptists and Pennsylvania Quakers? Anglican conditions in Spanish Catholic Florida were the same for Irish Catholic Maryland. Hasbro 09:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• The conditions in Spanish Catholic Floridas were like those of French Catholic Quebec, not Maryland. The Crown made exceptions for those colonies 'added' by the fortunes of war.
• As for the 'other special exceptions' if you have the sources be back you up. Add them, this is a wiki!

                   Bo 11:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, in Maryland's case the Irish were not given as much leeway. Then again, provide a source to justify any comparison like the one you just wrote between the Spanish and French colonies under British dominion as somehow different from the Irish. Wikipedia and all American official state sources note the unique qualities of Pilgrims in Plymouth, Roger Williams in Rhode Island and the Quakers in Pennsylvania on unofficial colonial churches. Why are you asking for sources? That's like asking for a source to call a spade, a spade. Hasbro 11:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The quoted text from the Massachusets state constitution is from a section that was redacted under an amendment. See existing reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlhagerman (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I didn't intend to 'ask for the sources' but to remind you that as the wikipedia frowns on 'orginal research', one would need to be able to provide a 'relaible source' for the 'sepcial exceptions'. -- I seem to recall that Pennsylvannia was a 'Quaker state' with full religous tolerance, but as I don't have a 'source' at hand, I've not made the changes to indicate that Pennsylcvannia wasn't at least officially an establish church colony.

• As for the comparission I made: The peace treatis of 1763 garanteed the toleration acts for the Catholics in Florida (Article XX of the Treaty of Paris, 1763) and Quebec. Maryland had no such 'external source' for its acts of tollerance. Bo 19:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Shinto

is't shinto the state religion of japan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Punishment??

The establishment of a state religion almost always coincides with an establishment of "discouragement" for individuals not belonging to that state religion. The Wiki article completely ignores this major aspect of established state religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.229.42 (talk • contribs) 01:42, April 28, 2007

The Kingdom and Church of England. The Church of England is older than the Kingdom and has the oldest legislative body in the kingdom, that of the Convocations of Canterbury and York. The Church of England, Ecclesiae Anglicanae, was always so called, and was "established" from the time of Saint Augustine. The sepâration of the Church of England from the Diocese of Rome was just that, and the powers of the Pope when Temporal were assumed by the King, and when Spiritual were granted to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This first separation ended with the reign of Bloody Mary, but was caused for the second time by the Deposition and Excommunication of Elizabeth and all who obeyed her, by the Pope in 1570. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.141.17.234 (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkey!

Besides Turkey being 'laicist' it also has a misintry of religion rulled by a sunni (furthermore 'hanefi') 'imam'.(it s called 'diyanet isleri baskanligi which can be translated as 'office of religous affairs', and actually ministry is translated 'bakanlik'. but it acts nothing less than a bakanlik and is in one of the top percentiles of the budget)

The Turkish State not only bans muslim (mostly women because they can spotted easily) from the public sphere, they also have a ministry that they can control the muslims. for example 23 Nisan Ulusal Egemenlik ve Cocuk Bayrami (23rd of April National sovereignty and childrens day (the establishment of TBMM) ) a national day in turkey and during that week the mosques all over turkey, since all mosques have to read what the ministry gives them to read for friday preaching, preach about how children are important and etc.

can anyone call this secular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.241.66.248 (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

In Turkey there is no ministry of religion there is presidency of religious affairs. --scarletglory (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Italy

Italy disestablished Catholicism as the state religion in the 1947 constitution which declared the separation of Church and State. This other Wikipedia article also states this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Italy

"A new constitution was written, setting up a parliamentary democracy. The 1929 Concordat with the Vatican was continued, while Catholicism was not the official state religion anymore."

--71.190.5.212 (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

State Churches in the UK

For some reason Scotland and Wales are listed as having Anglican state churches. Wales used to have the Church of England as its state church, but the Welsh Church was separated and disestablished in 1920. Scotland has a state church, but it is not the Scottish Episcopal Church, but the Church of Scotland, a Reformed/Presbyterian church. I'm fixing this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.69.97 (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

You are wrong. Even if the Church of Scotland has this name and it is much bigger, the state church is the Scottish Episcopal Church. --Checco 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's two opinions heard from. It would probably be useful to add a cite supporting whichever opinion is correct to the article, and to correct the body of the article -- which asserts at one point that the national church of Scotland is the Church of Scotland, and which asserts contrarily at another point that the Scottish Episcopal Church is. Also, I note (1) that the Church of Scotland page asserts that, "The Church of Scotland (CofS, known informally as The Kirk; Eaglais na h-Alba in Scottish Gaelic) is the national church of Scotland.", but does not supply a citation supporting that assertion and (2) the Scottish Episcopal Church page refers to "... the national Church of Scotland". -- Boracay Bill 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Britannica refers to "the established Church of Scotland"[6]. The BBC calls the Church of Scotland "Scotland's established church"[7] (also [8]) --David Edgar 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The intro to this article says: "A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state." I think what is needed is a cite of an instrument issued by the government of Scotland which officially endorses one or the other of these churches. -- Boracay Bill 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters, here's a link to the Act of Union: Union with England Act 1707 Table of Textual Amendments from the UK parliament publications site, which discusses the establishment of the Presbyterian Church (the Church of Scotland) when Great Britain was created as a nation. It also refers to the changes made by the Church of Scotland Act 1921. --David Edgar 19:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT (and I am no expert -- Yells: is there an expert out there who can help?), that first link is to a document which seems to have, in 1706 / 1707, established the Presbyterian Church as the State Church of the UK and of the countries comprising it, including Scotland. The second link is to a wikipedia page which leads to the wikisource page: Church of Scotland Act 1921, which seems to have declared that the Church of Scotland is the national church in Scotland. The Scotland section of wikipedia page titled Religion in the United Kingdom explains that (without supporting cites) thusly: "The Church of Scotland is recognised in law (by the Church of Scotland Act 1921) as the national church in Scotland, but is not an established church and is independent of state control in matters spiritual." That wikipedia page also declares (also without a supporting cite) "The indigenous Scottish Episcopal Church (which is part of the Anglican communion), is a relatively small denomination and not established." (Perhaps that should have said "... also not established.") (note: emphasis was added by me)

There seem to be contradictions on this page regarding Scotland, the Church of Scotland, and the Scottish Episcopal Church. There seem to be contradictions between claims made in various other wikipedia pages which touch on this subject - some mentioned in earlier discussion in this talk page section. Reading some outside sources has not cleared the matter up for me. I don't think I am contributing anything useful here, and I am withdrawing from this discussion. Hopefully, someone with a better grasp on all of this than I have will step in and clarify matters. -- Boracay Bill 02:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Scotland is mostly Presbyterian, but the state church is definitely Anglican. I'm sure about it, 'cos I studied it at University. A reliable source? Silvio Ferrari - Ivan Iban, Diritto e religione in Europa occidentale, Il Mulino, Bologna 1997. --Checco 13:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is a book. --Checco 13:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the book can be cited in support of this assertion, and the relevent supporting bit from the book can be quoted (in English translation if need be).

Also, I grubbed around a bit and came up with RELIGIOUS LIBERTY: THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN SELECTED OSCE COUNTRIES (May 2000 - A Report Prepared by the Law Library, Library of Congress, at the Request of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe). This report does not have a section on Scotland, but it does mention Scotland at several points. One bit says: "The Church of Scotland is “established” in the sense that its system of church courts was set up by Parliament, but over the centuries it has resisted interference by secular authorities. The Church of Scotland Act 1921 recognizes its exclusive authority to decide ecclesiastical issues, and the statute incorporates and accepts the Church’s Declaratory Articles as lawful." Bear in mind here that the intro to this article says: "A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state." So, in my mind the operative question is whether or not some particular Church has been officially endorsed by the state. Does acceptance by the state of decisions of church courts regarding ecclesiastical issues constitute an official endorsement of the church by the state? -- Boracay Bill 23:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue is a dead letter, but I am rather surprised that there is any confusion on this matter - and baffled that Checco insists that the established church in Scotland is the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. He claims to have learned in university that Anglicanism is the state religion in Scotland, but this is totally incorrect. The Scottish Episcopal Church is absolutely not the established church in Scotland. It is a remnant of those in Scotland that remained loyal to episcopal church government (meaning rule by bishops) while the majority desired a presbyterian system (rule by elders). Bishops existed in the post-Reformation Church of Scotland from 1560-1690 in spite of the fact that many Scots favoured a presbyterian system. Nonetheless, both factions (Episcopalians and Presbyterians) were members of the same church. Episcopacy was abolished in Scotland after the Glorious Revolution by the 1689 Scottish Convention. Part of the reason for their abolition is that many Presbyterians supported the overthrow of the Roman Catholic James II (in Scotland known as James VII) in favour of the coregency of Mary II, daughter of James II, and her husband, William, Prince of Orange, who became William III of England - in Scotland, he is known as William II. Many Scottish bishops, however, refused to swear allegiance to William, and supported the Jacobite cause.

It is noteworthy that when the British monarch is in Scotland, his or her chaplains and chapels are Church of Scotland and not Scottish Episcopal. This is part of the constitutional settlement since 1690. The established Church of England is not the established church of the United Kingdom and was not the established church of the former British Empire - it is only established in England itself. When the monarch is in Scotland, he or she is an ordinary lay member of the Church of Scotland - even though he or she is the titular Supreme Governor of the Church of England. If the monarch attends the annual meeting of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, he or she does so as a lay member with no right of interference. If the monarch does not attend, a Lord High Commissioner is appointed to represent the monarch - but again with no right of interference.

The Church of Scotland claims to be the national church of Scotland, but has always refused the title of established church. Because it is not established, it cannot be disestablished. Jm3106jr (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Slovakia has state religion?

According to the map it does....is that right? Wikipedia's article on Slovakia doesnt say anything about a state religion. Daniel32708 (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Daniel32708

From the Constitution of Slovakia:

Chapter I Basic Provisions
Article 1
The Slovak Republic is a sovereign, democratic, and law-governed state. It is not linked to any ideology or religious belief.
[...]
Chapter II Basic Rights and Freedoms
Part 1 General Provisions
[...]
Article 12 [Equality]
(1) People are free and equal in dignity and their rights. Basic rights and liberties are inviolable, inalienable, secured by law, and unchallengeable.
(2) Basic rights and liberties on the territory of the Slovak Republic are guaranteed to everyone regardless of sex, race, color of skin, language, creed and religion, political or other beliefs, national or social origin, affiliation to a nation or ethnic group, property, descent, or another status. No one must be harmed, preferred, or discriminated against on these grounds.[...]
[...]
Part 2 Basic Human Rights and Liberties
[...]
Article 24 [Freedom of Religion]
(1) The freedoms of thought, conscience, religion, and faith are guaranteed. This right also comprises the possibility to change one's religious belief or faith. Everyone has the right to be without religious belief. Everyone has the right to publicly express his opinion.
(2) Everyone has the right to freely express his religion or faith on his own or together with others, privately or publicly, by means of divine and religious services, by observing religious rites, or by participating in the teaching of religion.
(3) Churches and religious communities administer their own affairs. In particular, they constitute their own bodies, inaugurate their clergymen, organize the teaching of religion, and establish religious orders and other church institutions independently of state bodies.

(4) Conditions for exercising rights according to Sections (1)-(3) can be limited only by law, if such a measure is unavoidable in a democratic society to protect public order, health, morality, or the rights and liberties of others.

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that this country has no state religion. Can someone edit the map to correct this?Daniel32708 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Daniel32708

Slovak constitution does not give any preference (or mention) to the Catholic church. The claim is also unsourced. (Rider In The Storm (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)).

What claim? The above discussion dates from 2009, and whatever error applied then has clearly been corrected since. RashersTierney (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The terms state religion, official religion, established church and state church

The lead sentence of this article asserts that these four terms are equivalent. However, tequivalency of the terms state religion and established church has been questioned in the discussion section above (see here). Can editors of this article come to a consensus regarding whether or not these terms are equivalent? Consensus that there are differences of meaning between some of these terms would indicate that some revisions in the article are needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)