Separation of Religion and State in Stable Christian Democracies: Fact or Myth?

in Journal of Law, Religion and State
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

This study compares separation of religion and state (SRAS) as it is conceived in theory with its realization in practice in 40 stable Christian democracies between 1990 and 2008 based on data from the Religion and State Round 2 dataset. There is no agreement in the literature on how SRAS ought to be conceived. Many scholars argue that SRAS is a necessary condition for liberal democracies. The present study examines four models of SRAS found in the literature, and a non-SRAS model that addresses the appropriate role of religion in democracies: secularism-laicism, absolute SRAS, neutral political concern, exclusion of ideals, and acceptable support for religion. The study analyzes three factors: (a) whether the state supports one or some religions more than others; (b) the extent of religious legislation; and (c) restrictions on the religious practices and institutions of religious minorities. The analysis shows that depending on the definition of SRAS used, between zero and eight of the 40 countries practice SRAS. Based on this finding, I conclude that either SRAS is not a necessary condition for liberal democracy or many states commonly considered to be liberal democracies are not.

Separation of Religion and State in Stable Christian Democracies: Fact or Myth?

in Journal of Law, Religion and State

Sections

References

17

Maziesupra note 10 (2004).

18

Driessensupra note 11.

27

Esbecksupra note 19.

29

Madeleysupra note 21 at 5–6.

32

Maziesupra note 10

33

Driessensupra note 11.

35

Stepansupra note 1 at 39–40.

40

Foxsupra note 12 (2008).

56

Maziesupra note 10 (2004; 2006).

57

Foxsupra note 10.

59

Maziesupra note 10 (2004; 2006).

60

Driessensupra note 11.

67

J. Duin“US to Allow Wiccan Symbols on Military Graves”The Washington TimesApr. 24 2007.

70

Foxsupra note 12 (2008); see also B.J. Grim & R. Finke “International Religion Indexes: Government Regulation Government Favoritism and Social Regulation of Religion” 2(1) Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion 1 33–36 (2006); see also Kuru supra note 19.

76

Maziesupra note 10.

77

Driessensupra note 11.

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Scatter Plot of Religious Legislation and Religious Discrimination in 2008

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 60 60 16
Full Text Views 8 8 8
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0