Talk:Secular state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Secular state article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] Australia/Canada/New Zealand

The head of state of these countries is Queen Elizabeth II. By law, the British monarch must be a member of the Church of England - so they aren't totally secular, even if they are in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.242.186 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Israel?

It's not clear from current EN:WP content whether Israel is officially and legally a secular state or officially and legally a theocracy like Iran although Religion in Israel does state that 20-80% of Israelis declare themselves "secular". I should think this was a matter of record and even its being in a state of indeterminacy a matter of fact worth finding out. Lycurgus 09:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iceland is NOT secular

The picture in this article is wrong. Iceland is not a secular state, it never has been. Even the Icelandic Constitution states that Iceland is not secular.

Section VI, Article 62: "The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the State Church in Iceland and, as such, it shall be supported and protected by the State."

SKC 18:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why has the map in this article not yet been changed? I posted this over a month ago and nobody has changed the picture: it still shows Iceland as a secular nation when (as shown above) it clear is not. I have tried to change it myself but with no luck. SKC 22:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uzbekistan secular?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Uzbekistan Based on the article, Uzbekistan does not have freedom of religion. Hence, can it really be called a secular state?

[edit] Is Danmark secular?

Danmark has a state churchn which is ruled by the state. I think it's a non secular country, like Norway!

Even if a church, as an institution, has a sort of special judicial status in a country, the country can still be officially secular, i.e. christianity does not have a special status as a religion, but certain church has a speacial status as an institution. I think there is a difference.

Denmark has freedom of religions, but is definitely not secular! The head of the national church is appointed by (and a member of) the government, as guaranteed by the constitution. If Denmark is is considered secular, so must Iran be.

Someone please fix the map to color Denmark like Norway.--Per Abrahamsen 19:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia is not secular

The official religion of Malaysia is Islam. I will remove it from the list. Hihellowhatsup 19:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Malaysia is not secular. It should not be listed from the secular list. The official religion in this country is Islam. Ryan_Aldren 05:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a debate of whether Malaysia is a secular state. But what clear is that, Malaysia is not an Islamic state. Having Islam as the official religion does not automatically turn Malaysia into an Islamic state. __earth ^(Talk) 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But here are only all the countries which are only Officially secular states.I Have removed it from list. Sonny00 05:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Malaysia is not a secular country. Please DO NOT add it again and again. Goto this page [1] Read Article 3 of Part 1. (Mm11 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] The United Kingdom is and is not secular

The United Kingdom's established churches are the Church of England (in England and Wales) and Church of Scotland in Scotland. Although I can see how this might make the union appear secular it is not secular. Although this recent government has dwindled on their support for the established religion (mainly due to the current cabinet being composed of prominant Catholics); Anglicanism (Church of England/Scotland) is still the established religion. Northern Ireland does not have an established church, although the individual communities of nationalists (catholics) and unionists (protestants) will no doubt each recognise their own churches. I'm 90% sure that there is actually still a law (and I'll try and find this exact law if it still exists) that was introduced under Winston Churchill in the 40's or 50's, that made prayers in morning assembly in state schools mandatory. The BBC briefly reported on it not that long ago over the religious schools row a year or two ago (again, I'll try and find something to support my memory of this). Until such a time, I'm going to remove the United Kingdom from the list.

Not only is the UK not a secular state, I have never known anyone to consider it to be one. The whole paragraph saying how the UK is actually a religious state (shock horror! revelation!) is totally superfluous Triangl 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Scotland is not Anglican. It is Presbyterian which is a very different thing -- a democracy in contrast to the Anglican hierarchy. The Queen may be head of the Church of England but she is just another member of the Church of Scotland with the same voting rights as any other member in good standing. The CoS is also not an established church. In fact many of its members have fought to keep it -- or make it -- disestablished (ie separate from the state) over the last three hundred years. They achieved final victory during the 1920s. Thus it is true to say that the UK is both secular (in Ireland and Scotland) and non-secular (in England and Wales) -- in theory anyway. The UK is also important to the idea of the secular state since the idea was first developed there even though it may have come to fruition in other parts of the world. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland are all controlled by Westminster which means that they are officially protestant. The map must be changed for this purpose. 7th June 2008

The act was the Education act 1944 though hardly any schools enforce it nowadays

cant see how this list is based on fact. USA & UK are christain democracies..

UK is not an officially secular state? :) --Noypi380 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States is not a Christian democracy. It is a secular nation, as the First Amendment of the constitution clearly says. I don't see how the US is a Christian democracy if the Constitution never mentions the words "God", "Jesus", "Bible", or "Christ". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hihellowhatsup (talk • contribs) 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

"in god we trust" one US bank notes. completely secular? Also there is a religious influence on laws and do americans have to swear by the bible in court? 7th June 2008

Just where does the phrase "One Nation Under God" come from anyway? Triangl 14:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That is just in the pledge of allegance, the One Nation Under God bit was added during the Cold War as sort of a taunt to the godless communists. So we are a really silly secular nation. The US is secular in that my church, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, has just as many rights as any other church. RAmen SierraSkier 06:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The preamble to the US constitution does in fact mention God.

It's the ANTHEM. Religion plays absolutely no role in the constitution other than decorative purposes, and it SPECIFICALLY SAYS that the US must have the seperation of Church and State.

Started a list of officially secular states (according to the respective constitutions or the like). Need help completing the list. :) --Noypi380 10:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: The only officially atheist state in history was Albania under Enver Hoxha. Countries like North Korea or the Soviet Union were/are something in between secular and atheistic - they supported full freedom of religion in theory while discouraging religious activities to a greater or lesser degree in practice. -- Nikodemos 09:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction! :) --Noypi380 01:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was the link removed? Canadianism 05:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone won't give a citation as to how the USA is a secular state, I'll remove that in 24h. Tuncay Tekle 07:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States was founded as a secular nation, without any references to any religion and without any state religion. The First Amendment states that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Adams, stated that: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" SincereGuy 23:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not say anything about the state being secular at all, it just says that the government will not regulate religion, in some real secular states (such as France and Turkey), the government regulates the religions (and the exercise thereof). If you look at Wisconsin's constitution just as an example, it states: "We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this constitution." This is in direct contradiction with a secular state, as far as I know Wisconsin is one of the states of the United States. I'll remove USA from secular states again until someone comes up with a real justification (which I believe does not exist). Tuncay Tekle 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution and federal government is above any state government (like Wisconsin). Yeah it is a bit of a contradiction, but the references to "God" are there and in many other documents because the country was founded from Christianity. In other words the references are there because of tradition, but by no means does any U.S. government force or "regulate" any religion or lack thereof on anyone.

"Historically, the process of secularizing states typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds to be used for a religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, opening up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion, and allowing political leadership to come to power regardless of religious beliefs. Public holidays that were originally religious holidays and other traditions are not necessarily affected, and public institutions become safe from being used and abused by religion." just based on that criteria alone, from this article, the U.S. is definitely a secular state, or at least is supposed to be --Kazaam 02:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll come to the same point: That a government does not regulate religion, does not mean it's secular. A secular state has no references to any religion or deity in the constitution and the judiciary process. It does not matter if these references imply or not anything in the social life or real practice of the laws and constitution, the existence of references in the texts is the absolute reference point, and by these standards - which I did not put - the USA is not a secular state. I think I have shown enough arguments for my point, please do not turn this into an edit war, and make no changes to this, unless there is a consensus in the talk page. Thanks Tuncay Tekle 09:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the Christian God does not make it non-secular either. 24.14.120.92 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The word secular means of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred. Clearly the fact that all US school children are required to pledge allegiance to the state, described as "one Nation, under God" means the US cannot be regarded as a Secular state.

Which part of the motto "In God we trust" is secular? --Kvasir 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Traditions that include religious references can be upheld. That does not mean a country is not secular. US law does not require anyone to pledge allegiance. Freedom of religion means freedom of and freedom from practice of religion. Traditions like Pledge of allegiance, de facto state mottos like "In God we trust" and references to God in banknotes and de facto national anthem are not religious practice. You can refer to religion without practicing it. United States was found on secular principles and surely the old Abe Lincoln would turn in his grave if he found out we are even discussing about this. Btw I'm not from the US.

If I was an atheist, i would be offended by the omnipresence of what claims to be secular reference to a non-religious god. But that's just me. --Kvasir 02:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

The Irish constitution recognises certain religions especially Catholicism - How is it secular?

- I'm pretty sure the Rainbow Coalition did away with that in the 70's.

[edit] Merge Laïcité here & extends this article here

I propose to merge "Laïcité" here, as we use English words on Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia where we can, and it seems many users agree that the specific, Roman countries, concept of Laïcité does not warrant a specific article. If it does, or eventually will in the future, the creation of Secular states in Roman countries or Secularism in France, Secularism in Turkey and whatever, will still be possible. Furthermore, I think this article needs work, and could use some stuff from "Laïcité". Seeing the recent spread of clericalism in the world, one needs not be a strong anti-clerical to believe in the importance of working out the true definition of Laïcité. Liberals of all countries, unite! Tazmaniacs 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly prefer that the article on Laïcité remain its own article. (1) We use plenty of French-derived words in English (naïveté, etc.); if political scientists in English-speaking countries use "laïcité" for a particular concept, then an English Wikipedia entry is appropriate -- as are entries for "Paris commune" (the meaning of the latter term is not that of the English word "commune" but that of the French word "commune"), "communards," etc. (2) Also, there are many subtle and helpful distinctions in this article on "Laïcité" that deserve not to be buried in an article on another subject, where they will tend to be overwhelmed. Thanks for considering my point de vue. 72.177.181.232 04:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur, this discussion had taken place a while ago in the talk page of Laicité: they are not the same concept, from an academic point of view there is a difference. For further, refer to the discussion in that article. The fact that it uses a French spelling is not the reason it is a different article.. Baristarim 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No strong argument were made on Talk:Laïcité. I am opening up again the debate, sorry for the confusion. Tazmaniacs 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Laicite should not be merged with secularism. Secularism refers specifically to the seperation of church and state, where as the French notion of laicite is more of a social philosophy that includes ethnicity, race, and culture as well as religion. While laicite often seems to demand secularism in government, it includes more than secularism itself does. April 5, 2007

There is absolutely no relation to "laïcité" and the refusal to include ethnic or "racial" datas in official statistics — which, beside, is one of the few exceptional things that the USA are known for, and is certainly not current in other countries. Tazmaniacs 16:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the merger isn't necessary. Whereas laicite is a concept, I think a "secular state" is more of a factual characterization, a distinction which seems useful to maintain. The articles can always link to each other so people can find them. Any objections to removing the merger banner? Mackan79 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur for the above reasons. Laicité is a strongly French idea; it is often suggested among words that don't easily translate in English. --Mashford 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How can you even consider merging the two? They are two distinct concepts. The difference between a secular state and one based on laïcité is perhaps subtle but very important. I suppose we could create an article on the relationship between religion and state, and in that article we could discuss secularism, laïcité, states with official religions, etc. But why does the laïcité concept not worthy of its own article? Because it's a French word?? That's crazy. Ledelste 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was actually just trying to think of a good name for such an article. State religion could be moved in that direction, if it could then refocus on the concept of "state religion" (as opposed to now where it's presented as a broadened discussion/list of state churches). The most straight-forward title, alternatively, might be Religion and Government, not currently taken. I've been trying to think of better ways to organize many of these articles; that latter could potentially be a starting point for a template as well. Mackan79 17:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is not that it is a French word, the problem is that if one can argues that Secularism in France has some specificities compared to, say, Secularism in Turkey, both are forms of "secular states", which is the topic of this article here. Other related articles include secular education, etc. At a minimal level, I think "laïcité" should be redirected to "Secularism in France", which would form a perfect sub-article for this article here. France is not that exceptional ! Tazmaniacs 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I understand the argument. Clearly France is different, and the term is used whenever talking about French secularism. Why not use the term itself? To me this seems much more useful to people who want to learn about the topic. It's also a term with relevance outside France, as systems are compared to French and/or Turkish laicism. In fact, the term often implies a more active kind of secularism that extends into social practices, such as not wearing religious garb in schools, etc. This seems pretty clearly to be an independent concept, worth discussing in its own right. Mackan79 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to merge the articles; they should remain separate but reference each other. They are related, not aspects of one another. mvc 00:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan

Pakistans founder Jinnah wanted pakistan to be a secular state. He died in 1948 and could not fulfill what he wanted. Its kinda strange that pakistanis rejected their own founder's vision.--Mm11 12:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats why there condition today is like that.Sonny00 05:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

Israel doesn't seem to be a secular state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel#Marriage_and_religious_authority . Can anyone seriously describe that as secular? I also dispute whether Spain is a secular state ("the [Catholic] church is economically sustained by the state" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Spain#Today ; "religion class is taken in accordance with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Spain#Religious_education ), or Ireland ("The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion." - article 44 of the Irish Constitution). Given that these three are wrong, I suspect many other countries shouldn't be in the list either (I don't have time to check them all). --86.133.247.156 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Since no one bothered replying to my comment of 18th April, on 20th April I removed those three countries from the list. Someone put them back again, but no one has bothered explaining why. The article states that a secular state is neutral in matters of religion and doesn't support any religious view. Can that really be said of the three countries I cited? -86.140.131.100 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Has the USA always been secular?

The introduction text says that "Secular states become secular either upon establishment of the state (e.g. United States of America)..." To be honest I don't know the history exactly, but since the USA became secular with the 1st amendment, wouldn't that mean it wasn't secular when it was established?

I assume that you are not in the US. The 1st Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. As such, it should be thought of as always being a part of the Constitution. The Constitution was ratified knowing that the Bill of Rights would also be ratified. The BOR tidied up the individual state's concerns about the formation of a powerful federal government. You could say that there was no 1st Amendment between the time when the last state ratified the Constitution and the time when the BOR was ratified (Just over one year) but it's fairly clear that these two events were an inegral part of the the formation of the government.--gargoyle888 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, remember Article Six of the United States Constitution, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States," has been in the Constitution from the beginning. -Fagles 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Several states, however, do have religious requirements according to http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2005/02/us-state-constitutions-and-religious_12.html, namely Maryland, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. --Chibiabos 07:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Those requirements have been struck down by the US Supreme Court because they violate the federal constitution. See Torcaso v. Watkins. Fagles 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are they still present in the state constitutions? And don't both the official U.S. pledge of allegiance and United States currency include references to the United States being a nation 'under god' and placing its trust 'in god'? --Chibiabos 04:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant Chibiabos, a religion is defined as "a body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices," acknowledging that God exists is different that creating a State religion. Basically: Believing in God isn't a religion, HOW you believe in God is, therefore things like "In God We Trust" can be officially sanctioned by the State, but "In Mohammed We Trust" or "In Jesus We Trust" cannot be, and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. Travis Cleveland (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada?

is Canada not a secular state? or is the old British system still in place that calls us a christian democracy?

Whatever the case may be, the map does not correspond to the list. It is not highlighted on the map. The article mentioned that since the Head of State (the Queen) is not secular therefore Canada is not secular. But why is Australia and NZ highlighted on the map? All three countries share the same monarch. I think consistency is what we are looking for here. --Kvasir 22:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I made that map recently to provide a visual representation of all the countries listed as secular in the article, as is common with overview articles of this nature (Parliamentary system, Capital punishment, and others). I searched for a serious and reliable source for a published "secular countries of the world" list to form a basis for the map, but I couldn't come up with a reliable online source. The article itself does not curently cite any proper source whatsoever for the list it includes, and is seriously deficient in that respect. I think it's not the map which should be discussed, but the list in the article, of which the map is just a representation. I've been trying to monitor this page and update the map to reflect any changes on the given list. Also please feel free to contact me and request an update, should the list here change and I miss it. Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The disagreement between Canada and Australia also catched my attention when I went through the list. What I personally learned is that the constitution of Canada makes a reference to God, while the Australian constitution doesn't. Atilim Gunes Baydin 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'Queen of Canada,' the 'Queen of the UK,' the 'Queen of Australia,' etc. are separate offices/institutions that 'happen' to be filled by the same person. The fact that Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada and governor of the Church of England doesn't imply that Canada is non-secular, anymore than if a Bishop or other religious official were elected as Prime Minister. British law requires the monarch to be titular head of the Church of England and not to be Catholic, but Canadian law doesn't, so presumably if Elizabeth became Catholic she'd have to abdicate the British throne, but would remain Queen of Canada. In fact, my understanding is that changing the monarch wouldn't even require changing the Canadian constitution (while changing Canada from a monarchy to a republic would). The Canadian constitution also clearly maintains separation of church and state, has no state religion, vigorously protects religious (and atheistic/nonreligious) minorities and is strictly neutral in matters of religion. It does, however, mention a nonspecific 'god' in the Charter, albeit in the preamble, which has no force or effect. So, it would seem that Canada is secular according to the article's description. K.d.stauffer 23:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should create a list of states that are secular in theory and states that are secular in practise. For example, Canada would be secular in practise, but not theory (references a generic God in constitution.) Paperweight 05:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

okay canada just got filled in as being secular, mission accomplished? lol

[edit] The People's Republic of China is secular?

China is a secular state? The world factbook says it's officially atheist[2] and I know all Chinese Communist Party members are required to be atheist.--Daveswagon 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be. There is freedom of religion officially no matter how much the state monitors different religious establishments. The state classifies Falun Gong as a cult so that's a different matter. --Kvasir 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States as secular or no?

Official policy remains that there is separation of church and state and no state sponsored official religion. Granted, US politics is increasingly polluted by religious extremists...err...christian fundamentalists. Nonetheless, I do not agree with listing US as a former secular state, which User:Denihcamder did today.—Gaff ^ταλκ 00:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems debatable whether or not it is, as several constituent states that make up the United States stipulate religious requirements to work in an elected government office, according to http://robschumacher.blogspot.com/2005/02/us-state-constitutions-and-religious_12.html ... among them, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. --Chibiabos 17:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Although the constitutions of some states include provisions that purport to have religious requirements for elective office, the requirements cannot be enforced because they violate the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. See Torcaso v. Watkins, in which the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed that the US Constitution prohibits the states from requiring any kind of religious test for public office. -Fagles 22:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

From an outside view, despite the constitution, the USA does not appear to be very neutral in terms of religion. It seems to heavily favour christianity. The president holds a bible while taking the oath of office and the pledge of allegiance references god. This surely goes against secularity? Maybe a mention of some of the contradictions that likely exist in alot of countries is relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon white (talk • contribs) 13:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argentina "supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church"?

Section 2 of the Constitution of Argentina says "The Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion". Nevertheless, Article 14 says people are free "to profess their religion" [3]. Since the government supports a major religion, I don't think Argentina is secular by the standards defined in the article. Could somebody research better and tell me what is the situation of Argentina regarding the laicité of the state? Thanks. P.S.: I think that if Argentina isn't secular the map should also be changed. — Rodrigo Gomes da Paixão. 02:01. May 24, 2007.

Sounds like Argentina has freedom of religion, without being secular. I believe most of the non-secular state constitutions support freedom of religion. even when their governments doesn't.--Per Abrahamsen 11:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A state can have a state religion (i.e. Argentina) without automatically forcing all of its citizens to convert themselves to this religion (i.e. by tolerating freedom of religion). But secularism implies that there are no state religions. Henceforth, Argentina does not seems to be a secular state. As a sidenote, abortion is outlawed over there. Tazmaniacs 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

the map has many factual errors. One United Kingdom is not highlighted as a secular state, and Syria is highlighted as a secular state. Both these things are not ture, and the map needs to be changed to recognize this.--Sefringle 23:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is not secular, as was remarked as a comment in the article: "It should be noted that there are many states often considered secular where the term is not, in fact, applicable. In the UK, the head of state is required to take the Coronation Oath [1] swearing to uphold the Protestant faith. The UK also maintains positions in its upper house for 26 senior clergymen of the established Church of England known as the Spiritual Peers. [2] It can therefore not be considered a secular state." --Chibiabos 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Syria IS a secular state. The only Arab state, along Tunisia, to be so. it has been secular since 1963. Lebanon is not secular whatsoever. The constitution clearly divide powers among religious groups. I am removing it from the list.

Has anyone given any idea to the thought that the map could be recoloured to provide 3 categories? to whit:
1. Secular States - Green
2. Ostensibly Secular States - Blue
3. Non-Secular States - Grey

I must admit that being a UK Atheist the grey colour of my Homeland rankles somewhat, even though I understand the reasons behind it (Curse those Lords Spiritual! Hopefully HoL reform will do away with them and we'll be on our way to a properly Secular State) Ostensibly Secular States would include those Nations who are, for all intents and purposes, Secular even though there may be an established religion. As far as I can work out this would include the UK and probably Iceland among others. Freedom of Religion and non-governmentally sponsored churches would probably be good benchmarks.Heliotic 04:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There a quite a few mistakes in the map - for example, England is coloured as state religion, while Wales is coloured as secular despite the fact that they both share the same laws.84.12.242.186 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The mere fact that the map contrasts 'secular' with 'has a state religion' is suspect. It seems that a more appropriate caption for the map would be "Countries with state religions in red, those without in blue." What do you guys say to that suggestion? Hairouna (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Useful concept?

It ought to be pointed out in the article that the concept of a "secular state" is a construct derived from secularization theory which itself is now hotly debated as a meta-narrative (which is arguably failing). The fact that it is actually quite difficult to decide whether states are meaningfully secular or not (the US is "more secular" than the UK?!) might be a clue that the concept is not particularly useful... 84.92.241.186 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "X is a socialist state": Necessary?

Do we really need notes such as "N% of the population of nation X are religion Y" (see Ecuador) and "Nation X is a socialist state" (see Cuba) in the list of secular states? I don't see how a country's popular religion or its form of government (beyond that it's secular) are relevant to whether or not a country is secular. I would remove these notes, but I fear it might start an edit war or something. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 05:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me and there have been no objections. I have removed them while doing a reference style update. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is Laos?

I wonder why this article wasn't included Laos. Remember Laos is a Communist state!

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia is not secular

Under the constitution of Indonesia it does not say it is a secular state, it says it believes in the One and Only True God that is it, includes all religion to be practiced within the religions of the book (Islam, Christianity and Judasiam). Same goes to Syria and Lebanon, it allows freedom of religion but President must be Muslim.Moshino31 (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This page, particularly the list, is so simplistic as to be inaccurate. The criteria for secular state is that it must state it in its constitution? Who makes up the definition for this page?

Yes, there is a clause in the Indonesian constitution (1) The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God. , but it has no further legal or constitutional support that I know of. However, it does go onto to say...

(2) The State guarantees all persons the freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief.

(1) Every person shall be free to choose and to practice the religion of his/her choice, to choose one's education, to choose one's employment, to choose one's citizenship, and to choose one's place of residence within the state territory, to leave it and to subsequently return to it.

(2) Every person shall have the right to the freedom to believe his/her faith (kepercayaan), and to express his/her views and thoughts, in accordance with his/her conscience.

(3) Every person shall have the right to the freedom to associate, to assemble and to express opinions.

--Merbabu (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why I'm removing tags

A few days ago three tags were attached that denigrate this article: refimprove, cleanup, and pov-check. The article reads to me as relatively professional, it has 69 references (!) that cover all but the first few paragraphs of text, and I don't see what is obviously non-neutral about it--so I'm removing the tags. Could anyone who thinks they belong here contribute to this discussion, pointing out what specifically justifies having such tags? FWIW, I had nothing to do with creating this article, nor would I describe myself as pro-secularism. Jbening (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I see on the Template:POV-check page the following instructions: "Place

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (March 2008)

at the top of the suspect article, then explain your reasons on the talk page of the suspect article." So if someone wants to add that tag back, could they please specify their reasons here, as they should have in the first place? Jbening (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The UK is most definitely secular

bbc

I was shocked to see that the uk was listed as non-secular, and the USA as secular, this is utter rubbish, we have separation of church and state the usa is run by evangelical right wingers.

Although remnants of religion remain in Britain , they are more for pomp and ceremony. They have very little sway on policy in any large capacity. That and the fact that even our most devout Christian followers pale in comparison to the voracity and closed mindedness of their American counterparts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.61.80 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I am from the UK. As much as it pains me, the UK cannot be regarded as a secular state. We have 26 members of the Church of England appointed to parliament; the Lords Spiritual who sit in the House of Lords. Whilst they do not usually vote, there is no rule actually barring them from voting. The existence of the Lords Spiritual goes against the idea of secularity: That there must be seperation between state and religion.80.195.246.3 (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I bet the Church of England would disagree. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] United States?

Why is the United States labelled as secular? There are plenty of examples that proves otherwise. American politicians frequently talk openly about their being Christian, the Pledge of Allegiance references One nation under God. NorthernThunder (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

See the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. - Plasticbadge (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The 1st amendment prevents the state interfering in religious matters. That is freedom of religion not secularism. Secularism is preventing religions from interfering in state matters - by way of example: North Korea is a secular country without freedom of religion, and the USA has freedom of religion, but is not secular.--84.12.242.186 (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why I'm removing tags again