Talk:Secular state/Archive 1

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 (UT

This is not the place to write weather Pakistan should be secular or not, as it is written for improvement of the article and not for criticism.

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)

The People's Republic of China is secular?
China is a secular state? The world factbook says it's officially atheist 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)

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)

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 &mdash; 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)

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 Read Article 3 of Part 1. (Mm11 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

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)

"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)

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)

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 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)

Why I'm removing tags again
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 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)

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)

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


 * Im shocked peple were even debating this. Of course it's secular, what kind of dumb ass said it wasn't? A bunch of wikipedia users can't change that even if they think Canada is not secular. 72.140.80.212 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenia is not secular
Article 8.1 of Armenia's constitution recognizes Armenian Apostolic Church as a national church. Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Secularism vs. Category:Separation of church and state
Category:Secularism is itself a category within Category:Separation of church and state. — Robert Greer (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Somalia secular now ?
does Somalia considered to be a secular state now ? especially after it's president from the Islamic courts said that he will apply the "sharia" law from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali the arabic (talk • contribs) 08:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Subsidized church
If a church receives financing from the national budget (as is the case here in Romania), is the state still secular? 193.230.230.101 (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian slightly more dominant only due to the Four Fathers thus we embrace inalienable rights
Technically protestants are supposed to be more respected then other religious group, because Christan are attacked continuously (for actually thought of inalienable rights), and it's pretty much politically right to attack protestants as evil as that idealogy sounds. It is a nonbias way to show how our constitution allow American people to be freer state of mind than Europe or Asia or South America or Canada historically. The constitution gives us an amendment to practice religious as long as the federal government stays secular, but there are several exceptions...most obvious is the US Ambassador to Vatican City or US Ambassador to Israel or US Presidents go to church. Just as gift-giving is a cultural phenomenon in China/Asia, it is only done on Birthdays and Christmas, and engagements in the United States. China obviously got gift giving that from Christmas Renegadeviking 18:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

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)


 * Done Jepaan (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

East Timor is a secular state even if the word "secular" is not mentioned
East Timor forbids the establishmengt of an official religion.
 * One of the basic fundamental items during the foundation of the state of israel that it is a state for JEWS .. so i think that map is pretty wrong about highlighting israel as secular state !! Dr B2 (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * The 1st Amendment also forbids the government from establishing a state religion. Secularism is not the prevention of religion from interfering with state matters but the lack of a state religion. Since the USA is forbidden from establishing a state religion, it is therefore secular. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 23:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Massive OR and SYN
There are a lot of serious problems with this article. First, what is a secular state. I don't think that it is a narrowly defined term of art in the social sciences, even in one discipline, political science for example. Thus, what one source calls a secular state, another might not. Another problem is WP:OR: that the list of states which are secular is sourced mostly from primary sources, i.e. constitutions, etc. Thus, it is the editors opinion based on an article of the country's constitution that the state is secular. The problem with OR is that editors are not experts and thus their original research leads to misstatements of facts and false conclusions. This is demostrated by the fact that a reliable source ,listing religous, secular and atheistic states lists many of the states noted as secular in this article as religious. Mamalujo (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the table in this reliable source, listing religous, secular and atheistic states in Europe in 1980 and 2000, Monaco, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, Andorra, Portugal, Britain, Malta, Armenia, Poland, Ireland, Macedonia, Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Belarus, Bosnia and Azerbijan are all religious rather than secular states. I'm going to make the appropriate edits. I'm also going to add this source as support for the European states which it does list as secular.  Thus the primary sources won't be the main source for support and we can start to move away from OR in the article.  Unfortuneately the source I'm working with only deals with European states.  We'll have to find sources for the other countries. 71.134.33.96 (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the other users, and I'll remove the map and the list of state as it is all just original research. An article about the principles of a secular state makes sense, but the map and this article lists a lot of states as secular when their constitution states that a certain religion is the official state religion of the state.Jeppiz (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Atheist state is a case of secular state?
--MathFacts (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No: "A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abusing (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The map of secular states is incorrect.
England, Iceland, Moldavia, Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, Slovakia and Thailand are not secular states. Source:

And why is the whole UK shown as a secular state? The Church of England, which is the established church of England. Only Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are secular inside the UK.

East Timor is a secular state according to Section 45 of the East Timorese constitution, which stipulates the separation of religion from the state. Source: East Timor Constitution Section 45 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.107.107 (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

removed Bangladesh as a secular state
Bangladesh is not a secular state - Islam is the official religion of Bangladesh, as stated in the Constitution of Bangladesh. See: Article 2A (inserted by the Constitution Eighth Amendment Act, 1988). Here is a news article from The Daily Star, the largest circulating English daily newspaper in Bangladesh. 117.204.82.5 (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in "Religious Freedom" section
The religious freedom section of this article seems to be biased against secularism, but that could be simply my perception- claiming that "extremely secular" states are "the most repressive" and "aggressive", also, giving time to one man's story about how he admired the American model of secularism without giving the other side or context. Cosman246 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

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. &mdash; 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)

I don't know if the USA is considered secular or not, but what is sure is that currently the World's map on the page states that the USA is secular, but the USA doesn't appear in the list of secular countries. This is inconsistent, someone should correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.235.198 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Map needs corrected?
The legend of the map does not match the map itself. The legend shows that secular countries are in blue. There is no blue on the map, and yellow appears on the map without a matching descriptor in the legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.152.50 (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the map — or at least the legend for the map — needs to be updated. In addition to the wrong colors in the legend, Norway changed color as well, so it is now listed as a secular country in the image but not in the article. Obviously the map or the country list in the article is incorrect. TobiasPersson (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The map also shows subnational entites as secular states. For the purposes of this map would it not be best to stick to secular sovereign states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.238.189 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the map such that it now only shows sovereign states rather than subnational entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkc1985 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

UK secular ?
The article says that UK is a secular state with the exception of England. As far my sense tells me, if at-least one part of a sovereign state is not secular, then the state as whole cannot be a "secular state". I agree that other divisions of UK except England are secular; but i do not agree that "UK is a secular state".  Arjun  codename024 19:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Though this discussion is not relevent to the ambiguity of the UK (it's attempting to provide a yes or no answer), I'll make my case here as you've requested it. The primary reason that the UK is ambiguous is because of the nature of its government. Whilst the Parliament in Westminster may not afford secular government to the whole of the UK in principle, in practice it generally does. There are also the government bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to take into account - which do not share the same religious ties as the UK government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.239.199 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S. a secular state
According to the definition in the lead, a state is secular when the government officially proclaims it to be, and secularity does not prevent morality from entering into politics. If it did, we would have to remove many countries from the list, such as Brazil, which has stringent anti-abortion legislation. So, I've added the United States to the list of secular states since, as explained by Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution, there is no official state religion and freedom of religion is to be respected. This is comparable to the constitutional guarantees given by other countries currently on the list. If editors disagree, they are invited to discuss it here. Spacepotato (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No.


 * "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 First Amendment prevents the US government from creating a state religion, or from interfering in the religious affairs of its citizens. What it does not do, and has not done, is prevent the government from allowing religion to influence both policy and practice. As such, the USA is not secular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.239.199 (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This doesn't wash. Surely that sort of argument could be used to prevent any state being declared secular where many of the voters are religious. In any secular state, individuals have their own religious views. Those individuals include politicians. Any state other than a tyranny will reflect the values of its population. That doesn't preclude a secular system of government where no religion is officially endorsed or granted a role in government.
 * Lets turn this around. What changes would the USA need to make in order to become a secular state by your definition? What distinguishes it from any other state that you do consider secular?
 * Certainly, the USA has not always lived up to its secular constitution, and there are those who deny or attack the secular nature of the constitution, but the constitution is clearly secular. It is already mentioned as an example of secularism in the article intro. To remove the USA from the list, having mentioned it in the article text is introducing an inconsistency.
 * There is a worrying form of language abuse (which I think you may have been confused by, rather than deliberately participating in yourself) in which some people want to shift the understanding of "secular" to carry negative connotations of "anti-religious". That is not part of the definition. We do not need to raise the bar to accommodate it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the lead of the article, it seems that the definition of "secular" used for this article is de jure, that is, it's sufficient that the government makes a credible claim to be secular. I think that the US does meet this definition, as it has the Consitutional guarantees mentioned above.
 * Demanding that religion not influence public policy is a much stronger condition, and one that it would be difficult for any democracy to meet, since if a substantial fraction of the voters have religious views, this will influence their moral outlook and hence their preference for public policy. Looking at Brazil, for example, the newsmagazine article I mentioned earlier, dealing with abortion rights in Brazil  states:"Rome 'is not going to open the door to anyone just to get more members,' he [Archbishop Cardoso Sobrinho] said after comparing abortion to the Holocaust. 'We know that people have other ideas, but if they do, then they are not Catholics. We want people who adhere to God's laws.' In Brazil, that hard line carries over into public life and government policy."Also, a report from the Pew forum states: "The growth in pentecostal ranks is attracting high-level attention not only from Catholic officials but from politicians as well. In the last presidential election in Brazil, for example, left-of-center President Lula da Silva strongly courted the pentecostal vote....  Politicians are paying attention not only because of the growth of pentecostalism across the region but also because of pentecostals' growing political involvement."  Similarly, in Mexico, we have the following news story :"In the capital of the world's second-largest Roman Catholic country, abortions are now legal up to 12 weeks' gestation. However, they remain a crime in the rest of the country where a woman risks jail time if caught interrupting her pregnancy. The liberalizing move in Mexico City sparked wide condemnation from the Catholic Church and sent both pro-life and pro-choice supporters into the streets.  Upheld by the Supreme Court in August 2008, it also touched off a political firestorm, with conservative state legislatures passing a spate of anti-abortion laws."And:"Since the first visit of the pope to Mexico in 1979, the church has manifested its dislike of being confined to the sacristy and has increasingly entered the public arena... (p. 93, Concise encyclopedia of Mexico, ISBN 1579583377.)"So, religion is influencing politics, both in Mexico and Brazil (which are both currently on the list.)
 * I think therefore that, as the list currently stands, the U.S. should be included on the list for the sake of consistency. To apply a more stringent criterion, the article would have to be completely rewritten. Spacepotato (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The primary definition of Secular is "not connected with religious or spiritual matters". If any national government or ruling body makes ANY decision based primarily upon religious values then it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be labelled secular in practice, even if legislation seperates the state from the church.
 * The two main issues at play here are both the sloppy wording of the article in defining what secular actually means, and the distinction between seperation of state and church versus the seperation of religion and policy making. You are right insofar as Mexico and Brasil should be removed from the list if they're acting in a non-secular manner. But the USA should not be added to the list simply because there have been several instances in recent history where religious "morals" have been a primary factor in legislative policy. The issues surrounding stem cell research, or example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.239.181 (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This arguing isn't getting us anywhere. What we need is references pointing one way or another. It should not be hard to find references that support the USA as one of the pioneers of secularism so lets let the references decide for us. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What's needed is a clean-up of what secular actually means. The difference between seperation of church and state and the seperation of state and religious influence also needs to be defined, because the former is possible without the latter. There is no doubt that the US practices the seperation of state and church. In practice, however, religious morality is easily observed in government - again, I point back to the primary reasons given for opposing stem cell research during the Bush administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.236.201 (talk) 11:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is needed is referenced content and you are not helping when you remove the references we do have. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The reference is irrelevant if the material derived from it is inaccurate. In this instance, it is. It gives an erroneous opinion on what secular means, rather than the literal meaning of the word. As such, it needs to be removed - especially given that the reference is the article itself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.236.201 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "the reference is the article itself"? It is a published book.
 * I am sorry, but you really do not have a consensus to impose your will on the article here. If you find yourself removing references because they fail to support what you think the content should be, and you have no references to support your view then you can't be surprised when you continue to be reverted.
 * I suggest we start an RFC on this and try to get opinions from a few more people. At the moment we have only heard from three people. You have one view and Spacepotato and myself have another. It may not be a large sample but, so far, you are in a minority of one. I strongly suggest caution in any further reverts. If you can bring reliable references here to support your claim and are able to build a consensus around it then I won't oppose it but, for now, we revert. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My error with the reference, then. When I clicked the link it took me to a Google page with text taken directly from the article in question. That aside, is it considered accurate to reference the dictionary for a literal definition of what "secular" is? If so, then I will happily do it. That much aside, the referenced material specifically states in its synopsis that it pertains to "recent developments in a particular country or region of Europe". Does that example entail an adequate explanation of what secularism is, especially given the vagueness of the definition derived from the source in relation to the literal definition of what secular is? Herein lies the primary issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.236.201 (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

This is correct, they can't be secular. They are not even simply members of the CoE, the monarch is the head of that church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.237.69 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this Wiki page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II

Elizabeth II is no longer styled as "Defender of the Faith" in Australia.

* 1953 – 1973: Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith[8] * 1973 – : Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth

Further, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1066401

at Section 116 says:

116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.98.67 (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Australia has many instances that undermine the claim that it is a secular state. S.116 of the Constitution is a weak clause of separation and the High Court Case "In defense of public schools" effectively confirmed that the section did not prevent the Federal Government from directly funding religious schools.

The best examples are the direct funding of Christian preachers in State schools and the requirement that State schools must teach Christian religion in classes.

The Australian parliament opens with Christian prayers, and the Federal Government funds Christian and Islamic schools, and religions are exempted from anti-discrimination laws. Further abortion remains only tentatively legal in Australian states, and in 2008 the Australian Government assisted financially the Vatican's World Youth Day and authorised the closing of Sydney streets for 3 days to host re-enactements of religious stories and myths. Religions in Australia pay no income, company or other taxes even on their commercial activities.

Australia has been referred to some people as a "soft theocracy" (source: The Purple Economy by Max Wallace) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankiebear (talk • contribs) 11:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of secularism
We need opinions on the following: For purposes of discussion the revision we are talking about is this one. People may also wish to express a view about the relative merits of this alternative revision. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the definition of Secular State used in the article correct?
 * 2) Is the definition adequately referenced? Can it be improved?
 * 3) Is the USA correctly included on the list of secular states? Can we find references to support its inclusion or exclusion?


 * No, it is not. The literal definition of secular is "Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body"1, "not connected with religious or spiritual matters"2, "not overtly or specifically religious" 3 as taken from three different published dictionary source. The article alludes to this, but it does not explicitly state it, leading to a somewhat fuzzy definition and an obscure article.
 * The reference material for the current definition does not appear to be entirely applicable. The synopsis of the book referenced appears to indicate that its primary discussion point is a European state or region. If there is a part of the text which lends itself to the fuzzy definition used in the current article, it would be beneficial to have a little elaboration upon the point.
 * The USA should not be included in the article, because it is not secular. What the USA tries to be is non-sectarian. Religious concerns (Christian moral views) have influenced legislation upon a wide array of things, from abortion to stem cell research, and the politicians have been all to vocal about this in the past.12 The Former President Bush's stance on atheism is also relevant here. The fact that the American electorate goes to lengths to ensure that their elected officials have "strong religious beliefs" is also to the point.3 If religious concerns are present during the legislative process, and influence directly the function of government, then a state cannot be secular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.236.201 (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some definitions in the literature are:
 * "In this study, states which expressly (i.e. constitutionally) position themselves as non-religious or non-denominational will be considered "secular states". A constitutional declaration of secularity means, first and foremost, that the state does not wish to invoke religion as a justification for its authority, actions and decisions.  It must be emphasized that proclamations of secularity, both historically as well as presently, in the majority of cases denote official impartiality in religion rather than official 'irreligiosity'. ... The United States of America and France compete for the distinction of being the first officially secular state." (pp. 111-112, State-Religion Relationships and Human Rights Law, Jeroen Temperman, 2010, ISBN 9004181482.)
 * "The secular state is a state which guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion, deals with the individual as a citizen irrespective of his religion, is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion nor does it seek either to promote or interfere with religion." (Donald Eugene Smith, quoted on p. 179, India's agony over religion, Gerald James Larson, ISBN 079142412X.)
 * "The secular state is one in which government is limited to the saeculum or temporal realm; the state is independent of institutional religion or ecclesiastical control and in turn, institutional religion is independent of state or political control. It is a state that is without jurisdiction over religious affairs not because religious affairs are beneath the concerns of the state, but rather because religious concerns are viewed as being too high and too holy to be subject to the prevailing fallible will of civil authorities or to popular sovereignty." (James E. Wood, quoted on p. 455, Rex J. Ahdar, Journal of Law and Religion 13, #2 (1998-1999), pp. 453-482, .)
 * A secular state "can be defined as a state that is uncommitted to any religious institution or institutions or to religious beliefs and practices." (John M. Swomley, quoted on p. 455, Rex J. Ahdar, Journal of Law and Religion 13, #2 (1998-1999), pp. 453-482, .)
 * "An-Na’im defines a secular state as one where the state is involved with neither the interpretation nor enforcement of belief and piety, leaving these matters to individual conviction." (p. 475, Indonesia: Legitimacy, Secular Democracy, and Islam, Greg Barton, Politics & Policy 38, #3 (June 2010), pp. 471-496, .)
 * Spacepotato (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of these references would seem to support the view that religion must be kept out of functional state practice in order to define a state as secular, "The secular state is one in which government is limited to the saeculum or temporal realm..." abiding by the literal definition of secular, whilst others imply a state need only be secular in principle (ie: constitution) for it to count. Both conditions cannot be true. I would favour the former view, that a state must also be secular in practice as well as on paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.236.201 (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I offer the following

 A secular state is a nation or country in which ( religion plays no official role in government / religion and government are separate ). In general, secular states guarantee individual freedom of religion, expressly position themselves as non-religious, and limit the jurisdiction of government to dealing with only temporal matters. The antithesis of a secular state is theorcratic or fundamentalist state.

Regarding question 3; the US is obviously a secular state. Any country with strong "seperation of church and state" and "freedom of religion" laws is. NickCT (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In principle, or in practice? The US does have seperation of church and state in principle, but in practice it does not. A secular state MUST be one in which all religion is kept out of government affairs. It appears that secular is being used as a synonym for non-sectarian.


 * The definition of secular is an improvement, however.


 * The definition of secular needs to be improved. In particular, this sentence, "A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion" might lead a reader to conclude that a secular state is one which guarantees equal protection.  More accurately, "A secular state does not coerce citizens to belong to a particular religion.  Typically,  nearly all religions are tolerated in a secular state (within the limits of its laws pertaining to the protection of persons and property)."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PSDWilliams (talk • contribs) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ecuador is Secular
Would you consider adding Ecuador to the list of Secular countries in the Americas? See the Ecuadorian Constitution articles 1 (Declares it to be a secular state), 11 (no person shall be discriminated on the basis of religion), and 26 (public education is secular). Aldocassola (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * Agreed, Bishops sit in the House of Lords. If that doesn't qualify as not secular, I don't know what does.Potatman (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2009 (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.


 * The premable does not mention God. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The US Constitution forbids the creation of a state religion, and forbids religious tests to hold public office. "In God We Trust" being on the money and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance does not make the US non-secular. Sure, there are people who use these quirks to claim that the US should not be a theocracy, but until they get their way, the US is still secular.--RLent (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)