Villaraza, Rosheen Angel M.

4BIO2

The Separation of Religion and State: Context and Meaning

Problem
There are some misunderstandings about the terms, “separation of church and state” and
“separation of religion and politics”. Sometimes these two terms are interchanged and used
wrongly to describe the relationship between religion and politics. Although the latter term is
preferred, it is still quite vague in its meaning and, strictly speaking, impossible to put into practice.
These terms also have analytical limitations.

Theoretical Framework

 Locke’s Letter concerning Toleration (1689)

- Locke is wholly concerned with the imposition by the state of a particular religion
upon citizens. "That church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate,"
Locke argued. He is concerned with religious forces taking over the reigns of state
and imposing a religion on the citizens. He also talks about religious freedom.
 Thomas Jefferson’s “Wall of separation”
- He stated that true religion comes from conviction, and conviction cannot be
coerced.
 Liberalism
- political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual
to be the central problem of politics

Method
The meaning of “separation of religion and state” was clarified using the writings out of
which the tradition arose. Writings from John Locke and Thomas Jefferson was used as basis.

Findings
The term church and state are often confused with similar terms such as “separation of
religion and politics” and “separation of religion and state”. There are 3 reasons why. (1) the term
“church” is monocultural, it is Christian, thus it is of limited use when referring to societies that fit
what Rawls (1993, xviii) called “the fact of pluralism.” (2) with the rise of non-conformist,
liberationist, and evangelical types of religion much of the most significant phenomena of interest
to political scientists cannot be captured by the term “church and state,” for such movements
operate outside institutional – church – structures and (3) there has been a legal and philosophical
trend over the last 60 years to remove more and more religion from the public sphere, making
“church and state” too narrow in terms of defining exactly what courts and philosophers wish to
keep separate.
 The best way to define the meaning of the separationist doctrine is to place it within the
context of the liberalism from which it emerged.

Conclusion
The term “separation of religion and state” has analytical explanations. One can
understand its true meaning if the examination of the term should turn to the liberalism aspect.
According to the two theorists mentioned, the doctrine mainly revolve on religious freedom. This
mean that the religion could be involved in politics if and only if the religious freedom of the citizens
if threatened.

Critique
The paper is still lacking. It didn’t properly distinguish the difference of the two terms
mentioned. In-depth examination regarding the two terms should be done in order to explain the
terms further. But, the paper was well written because it provided past writings of two different
theorists that further explained that the doctrine is mainly about religious freedom.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONAL EXCEPTIONALISM: MANAGING THE SEPARATION OF
CHURCH AND STATE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Problem
Matters of faith continue to shape and inform national consciousness. Religious freedom
forms part of the fundamental law. How is religious freedom characterized, and how does the
state approach questions regarding religious freedom and church-state relations?

Theoretical Framework

 Benevolent neutrality
- with respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be
allowed, not to promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow
individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance
Method
Ways in which government balances its secular goals and interests with religious liberty
and religious interests under constitutional boundaries were explored. The basis and origins of
the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the separation of church and state up
to the present constitutional order were briefly charted. Key constitutional developments since the
passage of the Jones Law were also outlined. The juridical personality or legal standing of the
most dominant religion in the Philippines -- the Catholic Church was discussed. Three emerging
areas were pointed to have the potential of furthering current understandings of religious freedom
and permissible church and state boundaries.

Findings
Philippine jurisprudence in religious freedom can be seen as progressive yet traditional.
Individuals and institutions enjoy free exercise and freedom of religious profession and worship.
Philippine experience of religious freedom is also marked with social tension and, in the
southern island of Mindanao, social instability.
The three areas are that have potential of furthering understandings of religious freedom
are:

 same sex marriages

- a petition was filed by Jesus Nicardo Falcis III with the Supreme Court, arguing
that limiting civil marriages and related rights to heterosexuals violate the
constitutionally guaranteed protection for equal treatment, undue interference to
liberty rights, and marital autonomy. Falcis, who openly identified himself as a
homosexual, argued for the need for a more LGBT
 criminal complaint against Iglesia ni Cristo ministers
 The Bangsamoro Basic Law and the GRP-MILF peace accords
Conclusion
The separation of church and state is mainly focused on mutual respect. That is, the state
cannot question its faith or even discriminate one religion from the other. And, the church cannot
force its belief on the state even if the church believes that it is good for the nation.

Critique
The paper showed concrete examples on how the separation of state and church is based
on mutual respect.
Separation of Religion and State and Secularism in Theory and in Practice
Problem
Do the states follow the religion policies they declare in their constitutions? Most states do
not have separation of religion and state but do not examine whether these states claim to follow
such policies by declaring themselves separationist or secular.

Theoretical Framework

 Separationism
- State neutrality toward religion where the state gives preference to no particular
religion but does not restrict the presence of religion in the public sphere
 Secularist–laicist model
- declares that not only does the state not support any religion, it also restricts the
presence of religion in the public sphere. These restrictions can include restrictions
on public religious activities and on religious institutions
 Four Models of Secularism–Laicism and Separation of Religion and State
 Absolute SRAS
- requires that the state neither support nor hinder any religion
 Neutral political concern
- requires that government action should not help or hinder any life-
plan or way of life more than any other and that the consequences
of government action should therefore be neutral
 exclusion of ideals
- requires that ‘the state be precluded from justifying its actions on
the basis of a preference for any particular way of life

Method
Quantitative methodology was used to examine whether states which declare
separationist or secularist–laicist policies in their constitutions follow these policies in practice.
Constitutions which declare a state secular or laicist and constitutions which declare separation
of religion and state was differentiated. The RAS data set was used to measure absolute SRAS.
Seven RAS variables were used to measure the various forms of separation of religion and state
and secularism–laicism examined in this article: official support; official hostility; general
restrictions; religious discrimination; religious regulation; religious legislation; general government
involvement in religion. Constitutions were to examine whether a state declares an SRAS or a
secularist–laicist policy. Bivariate and multivariate analysis were also used.

Findings
There are four types of policies which officially seek to limit religion’s role in government:
absolute separation of religion and state (SRAS); neutral political concern; exclusion of ideals;
and secularism–laicism. Majority of states which make both types of declaration do not follow
these policies. Majority of states which declare separationist or secularist-laicist policies in their
constitutions do not meet the standards. The results show that whether a state has a separationist
or secularism–laicism clause in its constitution does not predict which of the specific types of
religion policy it is likely to follow. On several of the standards the difference between states with
separationist clauses and states with no clauses is small. Unsurprisingly, with one exception
(Tajikistan), no state with an official religion meets any of the standards for separationism and
secularism–laicism.

Conclusion
The results show that constitutional clauses impact on whether a state will, in practice,
follow a policy of separation of religion and state or laicism–secularism. the clauses can predict –
to a limited extent – whether a state, in general, will separate itself from religion, but the wording
of these clauses does not seem to influence the manner in which it will do so. That is, there seems
to be no link between the wording of a constitutional clause and which specific religion policy a
state will follow.

Critique
The paper has strong results because they used data, bivariate, multivariate analysis, and
quantitative methodology to provide justifications for their claims. They also elaborate their
findings by giving examples. However, their expectations were not met because the results show
that whether a state has a separationist or secularism–laicism clause in its constitution does not
predict which of the specific types of religion policy it is likely to follow.
Separation of Church and State in the United States: Lost in Translation?
Problem
The absence of an American equivalent to the French word la'fcit becomes an
ethnographic opening to an exploration of the church -state divide in the U.S. context. The church-
state divide in the United States involves more than a legal doctrine concerned with individual
liberty. The church-state divide is deeply implicated in the U.S. public sphere in a way that makes
lai'cit difficult to grasp intuitively from American ground. And so it is not "American culture", but
the resistance of la'cit6 to American translation.
Theoretical Framework

 Max Weber's "The Protestant Sects and the Spirit of Capitalism."

- Church membership followed not just a profession of faith, but also a process of
qualification, and, in Weber's view, it was through qualification that church
membership came to represent an individual's social worth in a way that
simultaneously affirmed his economic credit worthiness
- It is mainly bases on Weber’s own experience in the US
Method
It used qualitative methods. Weber’s sociological accounts was used to discussing the
church-state divide from the standpoint of the way church membership-the template for a wide
array of memberships-supplies crucial forms and meanings to local social life in the United States.

Findings
The separation of church and state posits a dual role for local communities as both the
source of federal power (through representative government) and the foundation of its moral
authority. The separation of church and state in the United States does not by itself create a
secular state-and even less so, a secular public sphere. The problem of translation points to a
deeper conundrum of comparing not just legal institutions and processes, but also social
institutions and political cultures.

Conclusion
The separation of church and state in the United States is more than a legal doctrine
protecting individual religious liberty; it is also a cultural proposition as to the moral architecture
of the U.S. The church-state divide is a warrant for both individual liberty and a moral economy
only partially vested in state power. It is this structural implication of the church-state divide, not
the implication of liberty that makes la'icit difficult to translate.

Critique
The paper used Weber’s sociological accounts but it did not provide enough answers to
the problem of difficult translation of la'icit. The paper itself is like a one-sided story.
The Myth of Separation: America's Historical Experience with Church and State
Problem
Not only does the "wall of separation" metaphor have almost no historical basis, but it is
actually contradicted by the relationship between religion and government in eighteenth century
America.
Theoretical Framework

 Religious disestablishment
- The American experience shows that disestablishment of religion does not weaken
religious institutions, but rather strengthens them. It is a principle that is constantly
being challenged by groups with strong religious beliefs who strive for some form
of establishment.

Method
The timeline of events about religion and state was stated chronologically.

Findings
To Americans of the constitutional period, religion was a necessary prerequisite for a
virtuous citizenry. According to John Adams, there is "no government armed with power capable
of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion." He further wrote that
"religion and virtue are the only foundations not only of republicanism and of all free government
but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society.”
Eighteenth-century government constantly supported religion. Religious beliefs found frequent
expression in the acts and documents of early American legislative bodies. Four references to
God appear in the Declaration of Independence

Conclusion
The distorted use of the "wall of separation" metaphor was outlined in then-Justice
Rehnquist's dissent in Wallace V. Jaffree. The misapplication of Jefferson's metaphor has led the
Courts to create a confusing maze of case law restricting public expressions of religious belief,
exactly contrary to the Framers' intent. Using an inappropriate "wall of separation" metaphor, -the
establishment doctrines of the past have tried to reduce religion in scope and strip it of any special
consideration. But the First Amendment does not strive or even function to create a religion-free,
secular society.

Critique
The paper was just like telling a story about religion and state but it did not give enough
explanation to the said problem.
Separation of Church and State
Problem
Religious beliefs and practices are dynamic in American life. The constitutional structure
of America can affect religious freedom. If most Americans are Christians, why would they not
support the establishment of Christianity as the state religion? If the vast majority of Americans
believe in God, why not inculcate that belief in students and other citizens as a matter of public
policy? And how is it possible that religious belief has flourished without the protection and support
of the state?

Theoretical Framework

 Religious disestablishment
- The American experience shows that disestablishment of religion does not weaken
religious institutions, but rather strengthens them. It is a principle that is constantly
being challenged by groups with strong religious beliefs who strive for some form
of establishment

Method
The paper used qualitative research. The historical events regarding state and religion
were stated chronologically. The paper was divided into two sections: examination of the religious,
philosophical and political origins of disestablishment in the US, and illustration of the complexity
of the American church-state arrangement through an historical overview of the most important
judicial decisions.

Findings
The First Amendment focused in the relationship between religion and government. It
provided the framework for religious freedom by preventing the new government from establishing
a state religion, and by protecting the right of citizens to adhere to any religion they chose.
Religious establishment was the norm in the American colonies. The traditional logic of religious
establishment held that tethering church and state allowed each powerful institution to reinforce
the other. The Puritans enforced an institutional separation that was in many ways stricter than
the one currently employed in the United States. They prohibited religious leaders from holding
political office, censuring political officials or serving on juries, just as they forbade political officials
from serving religious functions, holding religious office, or censuring religious leaders. Civic
republicanism is a set of beliefs linking the practice of virtue with the presence of freedom and the
common good of society. From the civic republican perspective, religion was essential to the
maintenance of a free country. Puritan theology and civic republican political philosophy shared
the belief that a common religion can unite a people through shared experience in common
practices and beliefs.
Conclusion
The separation of state and religion is established for maintaining religious vitality and a
principled expression of the belief that theological and political legitimacy are distinct. Religious
liberty in the US have been widely successful and will continue to shift as compromises are made
and cultures are integrated.

Critique
The paper was okay because it somewhat provided a timeline of events that can be
followed easily. The use of words can be easily understood by most people.
SYNTHESIS

The fusion or separation of church from the affairs of the state (nation) is an issue whose

relative importance in any society cannot be overemphasized. This stems from the impact of

having state affairs directly influenced by religious beliefs and practices in the case of the fusion

of the state and religion.

In my opinion however, I sincerely believe that the church should be separated from the

secular state. Not everyone in government and not all who attend public schools share the same

religious beliefs. It is not fair to those who have different views to be forced to accept the views of

others. This is especially important in heterogeneous societies where citizens practice different

kinds of religions and a choice of any as the official state religion would constitute significant

inequality and tension. The separation of church and state has many meaning. It depends on a

person’s view. As long as the church and the state have mutual respect, they can be separated.

Modern society as we know it today would be unimaginable if the separation of the state from the

church had not taken place. This is especially so in the light of the achievements recorded in the

sciences as well as in technology which most definitely would have remain stiffened by the church

had it been the state was still under its complete control.

A common religion supported by the government could possibly help bring our nation

together; but a strong, unbiased government is the key to a successful, productive nation. I fell

that the common bond all Filipinos should share is that fact that we are all Filipinos. No matter our

ethnic or religious background.