Talk:State religion/Archive 2

Israel
Strangely enough, Israel appears in the list of states without any official religion. To my best knowledge, Israel has a state-controlled rabbinate, Ha-Rabanut Ha-Rashit, and there are also local state-rabbinates in each municipality. Israel has also official religious courts for personal status issues - there are Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Duruz courts for each official ly recognized religious community. drork 11:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've placed an NPOV until this matter is resolved. If the claim that "Jews" are something other than a religion then, as Wikipedia content requires, the claim must be verifiable: I ask someone to show a genetic cline or cultural symbols which are universal to all Jews and independent of their religion. lev —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter that there are chief rabbis, there are chief rabbis all over the world. Lots of countries have religious laws for members of religious communities in limited areas, specially in marriage, and sometimes taxes and military service. Even the UK has been contemplating allowing for fully shariah compliant courts to operate on compulsory jurisdiction for those Moslems wishing to accept the juridiction as regards marital affairs. Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is the defacto State religion of Israel even though it has not been officially declared as such:
 * Israel defines itself as a "Jewish State" (see the [Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty] and.
 * The national flag has a Jewish symbol.
 * The symbol of the state of Israel and also the Knesset, Israel's parliament, is a Menora. According to Wikipedia this is "one of the oldest symbols of the Jewish people". This candelabra sybolizes the one used in the Jewish temple.
 * State-run businesses (for example, public transport) observe the Jewish sabbath and do not operate on Saturdays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melvynadam (talk • contribs) 05:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the state religion of Israel is Judaism. Whomever tried to fudge this issue did a real disservice to readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.3.248 (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland III
Today, there is no Swiss canton which recognises only one Christian church. In all cantons, except Geneva and Neuchatel (where all Churches are under private law), both the Roman Catholic Church and the Swiss Reformed Church are officially recognised, in many cantons the Old (or Christ) Catholic Church, too, and in some cantons (e.g. Basle, Zurich) also the Jewish community. Official recognition (by public law) does not mean that these Churches and Communities are "State religions". Those times are over. -- Freigut (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Switzerland
How can Bern have THREE state religions and be majority Protestants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurian Legend (talk • contribs) 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because official recognition as Landeskirche does not mean State Church. All main Churches, and the Jewish Community, too, are officially recognised. This is now the law in all Swiss cantons except Geneva and Neuchatel (where all religious communities are under private law). -- Freigut (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The Philippines has no state religion.
The Philippines has no state religion. There was no proof in the source given that the Philippines is de facto Catholic. In the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, though sharia does exist, it doesn't mean that it is officially de-facto or de-jure an entity with Islam as its official religion. Sairyu (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits to map
Georgia, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic are all coloured in on the map, but none of these countries have state religions anymore. This needs to be rectified (I would do it myself but I'm afraid I don't know how to edit the image). Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether it's possible to colour-in The Faroe Islands, Tuvalu, Alsace-Moselle and Bhutan but if it is then they need the inverse doing to them to highlight their respective state religions. Thanks. Burbridge92 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Breaking news! Norway has changed it's constitution and removed the notion of a state church.
Here are some news articles:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/15/no-more-official-religion-for-norway

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/324906

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/05/norway-shows-the-way-by-separating-church-and-state

http://www.dagbladet.no/2012/05/14/nyheter/innenriks/kirken/religion/21593869/

So... who knows how to modify the picture in the present article?

Obhave (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on the exact status of this change. says, "[T]he Norwegian Parliament separated church and state when it carried a constitutional amendment that abolished the Church of Norway." However, Article 112 of the constitution of Norway appears to require further steps before the amendment becomes effective ("... An amendment to the Constitution adopted in the manner aforesaid shall be signed by the President and the Secretary of the Storting, and shall be sent to the King for public announcement in print as an applicable provision of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway.")


 * Modifying File:Map_of_state_religions.png looks straightforward. If nobody else steps up, I can do that once we're sure that the constitutional amendment has taken effect. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Norway's new constitution as of 21 May 2012 and the wordings in the constitutions of Denmark and Iceland is not very big. I would say that "The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the State Church in Iceland and, as such, it shall be supported and protected by the State." does not imply that Iceland has a state religion. (I do not know if there is another source for Iceland having a state religion (in common law or otherwise). I have read that Iceland adopted Christianity as its state religion in year 1000.)

The same is the case with Denmark: "The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State." does not imply a state religion. The new § 16 second and third sentence in Norway's constitution says (my translation) "The Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, remains the established [or national] church of Norway, and, as such, it shall be supported by the state. Further regulations on its arrangement shall be laid down by law." This is almost literally the same situation as in Denmark, and certainly not further from giving a state religion.

I will thus suggest to remove the colour from Denmark (and perhaps Iceland) in the picture of state religions in the present world.

Additionally, I cannot see that the following source tells that England has a state religion - http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/history.aspx - although I think that this is the case. Can anyone clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.48.243 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If the constitutions of Iceland and Denmark stating that "so and so church shall be the established church" does not go far enough for you to ascertain that these countries do indeed have established churches, then what more would it possibly take? Do not be so hasty to remove color from the map based on your own forced interpretations; it seems that you have made the goal of removing as much color from the wikipedia map your ultimate goal for the time being... Strange and sad.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I think that the change in the Constitution of Norway on Monday was a sad thing. However, I would argue that there is a distinction between the terms "established church" (and, for that matter, "state church") and "state religion". Thus, I think it is wrong to treat these terms as equals in the first sentence of this article. Indeed, Norway will still have an established church (in article 16, as mentioned above), although the state religion in article 2 is removed. Nothing that I can see, suggests a difference between Norway and Denmark with regards to the question of state religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.48.243 (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But as it is, our article does not make your distinction, whatever it is, and it does treat the terms "state religion" and "established church" as equivalent, or at least a subspecies of the same concept, so I would say you've got your work cut out for you convincing people otherwise for purposes of rearranging the map... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The consequence of the article's treatment of these terms would be to colour Norway as well, because Norway retains an established church. But that does not reflect the realities, due to the removal of the state religion in the article 2 of the constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.48.243 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So, Norway has removed a "state religion", but yet it still favors an particular "established church" in the constitution... and one would now think the ultimate goal and purpose in such hair splitting was solely to get the color removed from a wikipedia map, for propaganda purposes, and then to apply some warped view of 'full faith and credit' to get the colors removed from a couple of other sovereign states as well, by applying some kind of 'black logic'... That's kind of what I mean by strange and sad... Remember, someone famous once said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of tiny minds"... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The assertion that Norway has secularized and no longer has a state church is patently false and not NPOV. On 21 May 2012, the Norwegian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment for the second time (such amendments must be passed twice in separate parliaments to come into effect) that granted the Church of Norway increased autonomy, and states that "the Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, remains Norway's people's church, and is supported by the State as such" ("people's church" or folkekirke is also the name of the Danish state church, Folkekirken), replacing the earlier expression which stated that "the Evangelical-Lutheran religion remains the public religion of the State." The constitution also says that Norway's values are based on its Christian and humanist heritage, and according to the Constitution, the King is required to be Lutheran. The government will still provide funding for the church as it does with other faith-based institutions, but the responsibility for appointing bishops and provosts will now rest with the church instead of the government. Prior to 1997, the appointments of parish priests and residing chaplains was also the responsibility of the government, but the church was granted the right to hire such clergy directly with the new Church Law of 1997. Nevertheless, even after the changes in 1997 and 2012, all clergy remain civil servants (state employees), the central and regional church administrations remain a part of the state administration, the Church of Norway is regulated by its own law (kirkeloven) and all municipalities are required by law to support the activities of the Church of Norway and municipal authorities are represented in its local bodies. The amendment was a result of a compromise from 2008. Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske then emphasized that the Church of Norway remains Norway's state church, stating that "the state church is retained. Neither the Labour Party nor the Centre Party had a mandate to agree to separate church and state." (see http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke). Of the government parties, the Labour Party and the Centre Party supported a continued state church, while only the Socialist Left Party preferred a separation of church and state, although all parties eventually voted for the 2008 compromise.(see http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.2079701 and http://www.senterpartiet.no/article51796.html). The final amendment passed by a vote of 162-3. The three dissenting votes, Lundteigen, Ramsøy, and Toppe, were all from the Centre Party. (see http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/politikk/her-vedtar-stortinget-aa-avvikle-statskirken-3786678.html). I have thus changed the entry on the Church of Norway in this article as Norway still has a state church - as the government itself has stated in the plainest terms. Jm3106jr (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Jm, it's just as I thought... Some were being awfully hasty last May to uncolor Norway for the new map. You have proved Norway should have remained colored blue the same as Denmark and Iceland. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge "State church"
This merge needs to happen. It looks like from the previous discussion there was no major objection to doing this. Was there some other discussion that has been removed? Regardless, though one can argue there are slight subtleties in what the terms refer to, those subtleties can be discussed in the article and do not merit separate articles.

--MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.34 (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The map has to be updated
Norway is secular now.

41.108.99.52 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That source says that the change will officially come into effect on June 15.
 * The constitutional change in Norway doesn't really mean full separation of church and state. The church gets increased autonomy but it continues to be very much reliant on the state for support. After the change, the situation in Norway is very much like it is in Iceland which is considered to have a state religion. --Bjarki (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But this is not the Separation of Church and State article. The lead sentence of this article says, "A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state." Article 62 of the Icelandic constitution says, "The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the State Church in Iceland ...", Article 2 of the Norwegian constitution currently says, "... The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State ...". According to, "In the new wording of the Constitution there no longer is any referance to an 'official religion of the State.' Article 2 in the Constitution now says [sic. probably should read 'will say after June 15'] that Norway's values are based on its Christian and humanist heritage. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * However, the same reference notes that all clergy will remain state employees and that the Church of Norway will still be financially supported by the state. In addition, Article 4 of the Constitution remains unchanged: "The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same." It still sounds very much like a state church to me. Jm3106jr (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But see WP:V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In regard to WP:V, I will repost what I had posted earlier on this talk page: "The assertion that Norway has secularized and no longer has a state church is patently false and not NPOV. On 21 May 2012, the Norwegian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment for the second time (such amendments must be passed twice in separate parliaments to come into effect) that granted the Church of Norway increased autonomy, and states that "the Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, remains Norway's people's church, and is supported by the State as such" ("people's church" or folkekirke is also the name of the Danish state church, Folkekirken), replacing the earlier expression which stated that "the Evangelical-Lutheran religion remains the public religion of the State." The constitution also says that Norway's values are based on its Christian and humanist heritage, and according to the Constitution, the King is required to be Lutheran. The government will still provide funding for the church as it does with other faith-based institutions, but the responsibility for appointing bishops and provosts will now rest with the church instead of the government. Prior to 1997, the appointments of parish priests and residing chaplains was also the responsibility of the government, but the church was granted the right to hire such clergy directly with the new Church Law of 1997. Nevertheless, even after the changes in 1997 and 2012, all clergy remain civil servants (state employees), the central and regional church administrations remain a part of the state administration, the Church of Norway is regulated by its own law (kirkeloven) and all municipalities are required by law to support the activities of the Church of Norway and municipal authorities are represented in its local bodies. The amendment was a result of a compromise from 2008. Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske then emphasized that the Church of Norway remains Norway's state church, stating that "the state church is retained. Neither the Labour Party nor the Centre Party had a mandate to agree to separate church and state." (see http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke). Of the government parties, the Labour Party and the Centre Party supported a continued state church, while only the Socialist Left Party preferred a separation of church and state, although all parties eventually voted for the 2008 compromise.(see http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.2079701 and http://www.senterpartiet.no/article51796.html). The final amendment passed by a vote of 162-3. The three dissenting votes, Lundteigen, Ramsøy, and Toppe, were all from the Centre Party. (see http://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/politikk/her-vedtar-stortinget-aa-avvikle-statskirken-3786678.html)." Thus the Government of Norway's Minister of Church Affairs has plainly stated that "the state church is retained." One could argue that he is incorrect in his assertion, but it seems dubious to assert that Norway no longer has a state church when its own Government maintains that it does. Jm3106jr (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I still think Norway's just doing this so they can stop being colored blue on the wikipedia map. They want to sit on the fence and have it both ways - still be Lutheran by constitution, but disassociate themselves from Lutheran Church just minimally enough to get themselves colored grey on our map.   We should not be fooled. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

State religion in Argentina
The source cited was translating "El Gobierno federal sostiene el culto católico apostólico romano." to "The Federal Government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic religion.", but the word "sostiene" shouldn't be translated to "support", in this case it means something along "keeps", or "has", but not "support". Anyway, shamefully, the official religion is catholic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zequez (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Autonomous Oblast
Should the Jewish Autonomous Oblast of Russia be listed? Its part of Russia but it has an official religion, it is ruled by the members if the religion, and officially promotes their language and culture despite them being a minority. 24.16.117.135 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancies between article and image
I know that image talk is separate, but the article has cited claims from constitutions that Argentina is state Catholic and Bhutan is state Buddhist. The image doesn't correspond. Indiasummer95 (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Episcopal Church was never the established church of the United States
This article has many flaws, but the table that shows the Episcopal Church as the state religion of the USA until 1792 is truly absurd. The Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church, is indeed the American branch of the Church of England created when the USA separated from the United Kingdom shortly after the 1776 revolution. However, at no time was Anglicanism the state religion or state church of all 13 original colonies nor was it the state religion of the United States at any time. Some of the colonies did have official churches, including the Church of England where it was official in several colonies, including New York, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Others had no official religion, such as Rhode Island. The assertion that the Church of England was retained as the state religion of the newly formed United States in the form of the Episcopal Church in the years 1776-1792 has no basis in historical fact. There was never an established church for the United States, although several individual states did retain an official state church well into the 1820s, such as Massachusetts and the other New England states - except Rhode Island. However, in this example, the state church was Congregationalism - the church tradition that stemmed from the Puritan and Pilgrim founders of those colonies - not Anglicanism. The reference in the table to the USA and the Episcopal Church should be deleted. Jm3106jr (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also deleted references to the Episcopal Church in the table of American colonies since those colonies in which the Church of England was the state church made no provision after 1776 for the Episcopal Church, not organized until 1783, to legally succeed it. In fact, the opposite was true in that all these states abolished any sectarian affiliation. Jm3106jr (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Canada, Australia, New Zealand
I don't believe that any of the Commonwealth Realms are officially secular. There's nothing in their constitution saying that, just that they respect freedom of religion. Homagetocatalonia 13:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But do they officially have a state religion? -- Boracay Bill 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they don't. shauntp 18:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All countries with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State (United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Belize, etc) have their head of state swear that he/she is a faithful Protestant on accession, in addition the Bill of RIghts Act 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1700 provides that they must not be a Roman Catholic (and until 2013 they could not marry a Roman Catholic). These significant legal privileges, which are not given to any other religion, amount to a state religion even where the Anglican Church is not established because (as per the definition used in this article) it is a 'creed officially endorsed by the state.' Two of the relevant countries -Canada and New Zealand still have 'Defender of the Faith' in the Queen's title in right of those countries.Aslan112 (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Commonwealth Realms
(The Commonwealth realms are Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis)

I have removed the following entries under Anglicanism (note that Defender of the Faith in Latin is fidei defensor not 'fedei.'): '''
 * Canada (Anglicanism) The Anglican Church is not established in Canada but the British monarch, who is the head of state of Canada does retain the title Fedei defensor or Defender of the Faith in respect of Canada.


 * New Zealand (Anglicanism) Although the Anglican church is not established in New Zealand, the British monarch, who is the head of state of New Zealand must declare that they are a Protestant and will uphold the Protestant succession. The Monarch's title in respect of New Zealand includes the title Defender of the Faith '

I removed these entries because they have nothing to do with a state religion. Canada and New Zealand have no state church or state religion. The fact that both countries - which are commonwealth realms and retain the Elizabeth II and their head of state - use the title 'Defender of the Faith' in the royal style of their monarch as Queen of Canada and Queen of New Zealand respectively does not mean that any clarification is needed that Anglicanism is not established in either country. The only place in the world where Anglicanism is the state church is in England. It is not the state church of the United Kingdom and has no official status in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or any of the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. Jm3106jr (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If a state has a law stating that its head of state must be of one particular religion (and not of another religion) that amounts to a state religion (let alone the need to clarify whether there is a state religion). This is exactly the situation in countries where Queen Elizabeth II is head of state. Whether those countries go on to establish the Anglican church is beside the point.

All countries with Queen Elizabeth II as Head of State (United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Belize, etc) have their head of state swear that he/she is a faithful Protestant on accession, in addition the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1700 provides that they must not be a Roman Catholic (and until 2013 they could not marry a Roman Catholic). These significant legal privileges, which are not given to any other religion, amount to a state religion even where the Anglican Church is not established because (as per the definition used in this article) it is a 'creed officially endorsed by the state.' The fact that two of the relevant countries -Canada and New Zealand, go even further and still have 'Defender of the Faith' in the Queen's title in right of those countries is relevant but less important than the religious requirement for the head of state.Aslan112 (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact that the British Monarch is required to be a Protestant by British statute does not establish a religion in the UK or in any other country that has the British monarch as its Head of State. The only part of the UK that has a state church is England in the form of the Church of England. The older commonwealth realms retained the title of 'Defender of the Faith' in imitation of the royal style used in the UK. Other commonwealth realms do not use the title 'Defender of the Faith' in their royal style. In the case of Papua New Guinea, the Queen is not even accorded the title 'by the grace of God' in its royal style. Ironically, the title Fidei Defensor was awarded by Pope Leo X to Henry VIII for his rejection of Lutheranism. Although Henry later renounced Catholicism and separated the Church of England from Rome, he and his successors have retained this papal title. Each commonwealth realm is sovereign and none of them have by law established any state religion. Even in the UK, Northern Ireland and Wales have no state religion and in Scotland, the Church of Scotland while claiming to be a national church specifically rejects that it is a state church. Jm3106jr (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement 1700 is not an exclusively British Statute. All realms that have Queen Elizabeth II as head of state also have the Act of Settlement 1700 in their law. Some states have gone further and had their parliaments pass Acts specifically clarifying the point as in the case of New Zealand's Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. This is logical because if the Act of Settlement 1700 were an exclusively UK statute and if Charles, Prince of Wales, converted to Catholicism, he would be barred from becoming King of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (the UK) but not Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the other commonwealth realms and William Duke of Cambridge would be King of those realms. This would be a very odd result indeed.Aslan112 (talk)


 * It may seem odd, but each Commonwealth Realm must separately ratify in its own legislation any change to the Act of Succession. The Westminster Parliament cannot fiat a change in the Act for other sovereign countries that have the British monarch as their Head of State. All those states must also agree to the change. The recent proposal to allow a person in line of succession to marry a Catholic (which has not yet been enacted) had to be agreed to by ALL the Commonwealth Realms. If they did not agree, it would create a variance. And indeed, the possibility you suggest as odd - that a Commonwealth Realm could recognize as Head of State a member of the Royal House as sovereign not recognized as such by the UK itself is perfectly possible by law. For example, Canada could decide, by its own law, that it does not want to have a male monarch and could pass a law that states that the woman closest in line to the throne would become its Queen. She would then be Queen of Canada even if not Queen of the UK. Canada could also simply create its own Royal House and separate its monarch from that of the UK or abolish it altogether. Thus a Westminster statute only has force of law if it is included and accepted in the law of each Commonwealth Realm. Case in point is the Republic of Ireland which in 1949 abolished that last vestiges of the British monarchy's legal role in Ireland by enacting a law to that effect.Jm3106jr (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Portugal (done)
In the article is stated that, although not treated as the State religion, Catholicism has a "special status" in the Portuguese constitution. That is not the case. Please correct that part as article 41st of the Portuguese Constitution dictates the separation of State and whatever religion and establishes the freedom of professing any religion. Not once in the entire Constitution (296 articles) the words "Catholic", "Catholicism" or other of that kind is referred. So please, exclude Portugal from that list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.169.246.25 (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do that. B.Lameira (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. B.Lameira (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The above comment is not entirely true; while the Constitution of Portugal does not mention Catholicism, the church-state relationship is established elsewhere in law: Portugal signed a concordat in 2004 with the Vatican which DID grant Roman Catholicism a special status. The article should be corrected to reflect that, as well as the map.71.200.152.237 (talk) 05:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What you wrote is completely false, the Concordat is an international treaty between a state and the Vatican. It does not confer a special status in law to the Catholic Church, tax exemption does not mean being an official religion. 85.240.47.210 (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Church of Norway remains the state church
I have reverted the change that deleted the Church of Norway as a state church. There is some confusion, even in Norwegian media, about the Church of Norway's new status as of 2012. However, the Government and the Constitution clearly state that the state church is retained (see above discussion item 58). I reiterate the official government declaration: Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske stated that the Church of Norway remains Norway's state church, stating that "the state church is retained. Neither the Labour Party nor the Centre Party had a mandate to agree to separate church and state." (see http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke). Please stop deleting the Church of Norway entry unless you have NPOV proof that the state church has been relegated. Jm3106jr (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Restored the Church of Norway in the article yet again. I am not sure why but some editors simply do not want Norway to have a state church, but unlike Sweden, Norway, along with Denmark and Iceland, still have established Lutheran state churches - which the Norwegian government emphatically states to be the case! Jm3106jr (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Atheism as a state religion
At least in Vietnam/North Korea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.237.55 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, because atheism is not a religion per se. Vietnam does not mandate atheism even if it is assumed to be the policy of the Communist Party. North Korea also does not claim to be an atheist state. The only state that ever proclaimed itself to be an atheist nation (in the sense that all religion was officially abolished) was the People's Republic of Albania in 1967. State atheism began to be dismantled in Albania in 1989 and formally ended with collapse of the Communist regime between 1990-1992. Jm3106jr (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland
I don't believe the Roman Catholic Church was ever the state religion of the ROI. This entry was added by an unregistered user. I will delete this if nobody can prove otherwise Personalbest 16:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

After doing some research i have discovered that until '73 the constitution gave the Catholic church a "special position". Does this constitute "state religion"? Personalbest 00:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the article Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland "Roman Catholicism was not made the state church". I will go ahead and delete. Personalbest 00:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Its true that the Republic of Ireland never actually established the Catholic Church as an official state religion but the original 1937 constitution did mention a "special position" for the church. That constitution had a lot of weird nebulous statements like that, like claiming that Northern Ireland was part of the nation but not the state. But the current notes on this section say "The above listed countries also give constitutional privileges to Catholicism without necessarily referring to it as the state religion." It seems like Ireland would fit that description pretty well! Ultan42 (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Special position" is a very vague phrase. In Chile it was used in the debates in the 1980s and 90s and in one technical detail the Catholic Church is in a -special position even today in that it is recognised as a "corporación de derecho público" without ever having done the necessary paper-work required of other bodies to obtain that status.  However the relevant law on religious liberty establishes clearly that all religious bodies must be enjoy equal rights and privileges (Art. 20/ley 19.638).  Therefore the phase "special position" does not necessarily mean favoured position and Ireland should only be listed here if soomeone can produce hard evidence fro a reliable source that other religious groups are actually still at some specific legally based disadvantage. Jpacobb (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Argentina
Here's what's written in Argentina article:

The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and, although it does not enforce an official religion, it gives Roman Catholicism a differential status.

It says that Argentina has not an official religion. Thoughts?


 * The situation is apparently somewhat similar to that in Ireland. See  above.  To my mind, an official religion would mean that members of other religious bodies were excluded from certain posts or discriminated in carrying out their religious duties (for example, not allowed chaplains in the armed forces).  The examples in the footnote do not seem to me to make Catholicism official. Jpacobb (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Finland
Why isn't Finland colored on the "Nations with state religions" map. In the articel it says Finland has a state religion, but on the map it's not colored. ROOB323 04:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Finnish case is interesting, and I think there was a discussion here a while back as to whether Finland really had a state church, and whether the Lutheran and the Eastern Orthodox Churches were both state religions. I think the status of these churches is more complex than, say, in England or Norway, where the churches are clearly established and where the head of state is the ceremonial head of the church. I think that in Finland, the aforementioned churches have preferential status, and perform some duties associated with the state in other countries, but there are also strong provisions for religious freedom. According to the International Religious Freedom Report 2006, "the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church are the established state churches." So, I think the map should be changed to reflect this, with Finland coloured in both Orthodox and Protestant stripes. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable to me, though it would probably be a pain for the maintainer of the map. I note that note 2 in the Established churches and former state churches in Europe table reads:


 * I note that Finland now appears in both the Lutheran and Orthodox subsections of the Christian countries section due to your recent change. The reference cited for that change differs a bit from your edit summary, though, saying a bit more -- The constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice. According to law, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church are the established state churches.
 * I also note that the Finnish constitution (dated 11 June 1999) says


 * and


 * and


 * I haven't been able to find a copy of the Church act and the right to Church Act (??) which the constitution mentions. -- Boracay Bill 02:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Look... Established churches and former state churches in Europe... Finland Disestablished 1919 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.211.227.8 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 22 January 2007
 * What is your point? Are you suggesting one or more of the following (if so, which and why?)?
 * Finland should not be listed among Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their official religion
 * Finland should not be listed among Jurisdictions which recognize Lutheran as their official religion
 * in the Established churches and former state churches in Europe section, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland should not be listed in the Church column for Finland, or Finland should perhaps not be mentioned
 * in that same section, note 2 should be somehow modified or perhaps removed
 * something else
 * Please note that the intro to this page declares: A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. I guess that the point here hinges on the precise meaning of "officially endorsed", and on whether the page should limit itself to present time or should also provide historical info as background (or perhaps should restrict the historical info to the Established churches and former state churches in Europe section). -- Boracay Bill 02:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I mean that it's look like Finland don't have state religion anymore... Sorry, my bad english...--193.65.112.65 12:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a point of contention in Finland. The Finnish Lutheran Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church, as well as Finnish Government state that Finland does not have a state church, as the state does not actively endorse any religion. Most importantly, the state does not use spiritual power or interfere with the internal affairs of any religious organization. Neither does it discriminate on the grounds of religion in theory or in practice. For example, all religious organizations have the right to conduct marriage ceremonies and the schools are required to provide religious education for any faith, if a required total of 3 pupils of same faith per municipality is exceeded. (We have a state-approved curriculum for Adventism, Baha'ism, Buddhism, people of the Lord -religion, Islam, Judaism, Catholic Church, Krishna-movement, Christian Community, Latter Day Saints, Non-denominational protestantism and of course, for Evangelic-Lutheranism and Orthodox Christianity. In addition, we have a non-denominational ethical curriculum.) However, the two churches enjoy a position as organizations of public nature, having a special relationship with the state. This causes many free-thinkers and atheists to argue that Finland does have a state religion. There is no simple NPOV answer to this question. Nonetheless, one should note that the position of an organization of public nature is not limited to the two churches. The Finnish Red Cross, National Defence Association, university student unions, reindeer owners' corporations (paliskunta), regional forestry associations etc. each have a similar position, with varying duties of public nature. --130.230.131.108 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, this article does not clearly articulate its assertions regarding whether Finland has one or more State religions and, if so, which particular religion or religions. Also, the article fails to cite supporting sources for its assertions regarding this.

In the intro, the term State religion is defined for purposes of this article as follows:

As I understand this -- for purposes of this article a state should be said to have a particular state religion or religions if (and only if) the state government officially endorses or sanctions one or more particular religions.

In the Christian Countries section, this article asserts:
 * Eastern Orthodox - Finland recognizes one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches (the Finnish Orthodox Church) as their state religion. No supporting citation is provided for this assertion.
 * Lutheran - Finland recognizes a Lutheran church (the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland) as their state religion. No supporting citation is provided for this assertion.

In the table in the Established churches and former state churches in Europe section, this article asserts that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is/was a State Church in Finland, and was disestablished in 1890(sic?) and/or 1919. An explanatory note attempts to clarify this as follows: ''Finland's State Church was the Church of Sweden until 1809. As an autonomous Grand Duchy under Russia 1809-1917, Finland retained the Lutheran State Church system, and a state church separate from Sweden, later named the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, was established. It was detached from the state as a separate judicial entity when the new church law came to force in 1870. After Finland had gained independence in 1917, religious freedom was declared in the constitution of 1919 and a separate law on religious freedom in 1922. Through this arrangement, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland lost its position as a state church but gained a constitutional status as a national church alongside with the Finnish Orthodox Church, whose position however is not codified in the constitution.''

I see that Section 76 of 1999 Finland Constitution reads:

I take this as a constitutional declaration that the Government of Finland has the authority to control the organization and administration of the Evangelic Lutheran Church, with organizational and administrative details being spelled out in an ordinary law titled The Church Act. I take this to be an official constitutional endorsement or sanction of the Evangelic Lutheran Church by the Government of Finland. On the strength of this, it seems reasonable to me for this article to declare that the Evangelic Lutheran Church is a state church of Finland.
 * If you only read constitution, you are correct. However, the Church Act is not an ordinary law. The constitution explicitly states that it can be amended only according to its own provisions. The Church Act decrees that its amendments must be accepted by the Synod. After this, the parliament either passes the amendments without change or rejects them. The religious teaching and practice is not formulated in the Church Act but in the Church By-Law, which is wholly handled by the Synod. Thus, the secular government has only a right of veto in the changes of the church organization and administration. In matters of faith, it has no say. --MPorciusCato 08:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the Finnish legislation a bit more widely. Other religious communities than the Finnish Evangelic-Lutheran Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church are governed by the Freedom of Religion Act, which includes the provisions on the religious communities. The internal affairs and administration of other communities are governed by the by-laws of several communities. Such by-laws must be passed by the community according to the existing community by-law, after which they are subject to the scrutiny of the Finnish Patents and Register Administration. If the by-law fulfills the requirements of the law, it is passed. Basically, the amendment of the Church Act undergoes the same process, but the Church Act undergoes ratification by the Parliament instead of Patents and Register Administration.


 * The administrative decisions of most Church authorities (not the Synod or the Council of Bishops) can be applied against in the administrational courts on the grounds of legality, but the same applies also to the decisions of other religious communities. Their decisions can be appealed against in the general district courts on the basis that they are against the community by-law or illegal. --MPorciusCato 11:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know of online sources for English language translations of the Finnish Church Act and Freedom of Religion Act? -- Boracay Bill 22:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried to look for them, but there are none that I know. After all, the official languages of Finland are Finnish and Swedish. The Finlex-database includes translations of Finnish acts, but those are mostly on economically or politically important areas of the law. BTW, if you start studying the Freedom of Religion Act, you'll find the points about the appeal procedure in § 27, where you'll find a list of the articles of the Associations Act that must be followed by religious communities. The relevant articles of the Associations Act are §§ 32–34. Unfortunately, Associations Act (yhdistyslaki) is not translated into English, either. --MPorciusCato 05:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Adding to the previous, the status of religious community grants the beliefs of the religious community certain governmental approval. The Finnish penal codes includes a crime breach of the sanctity of religion (Penal Code, Chapter 17, § 10) which sanction a person who, A person who
 * "–– for the purpose of offending, publicly defames or desecrates what is otherwise held to be sacred by a church or religious community, as referred to in the Act on the Freedom of Religion (267/1998), or
 * (2) by making noise, acting threateningly or otherwise, disturbs worship, ecclesiastical proceedings, other similar religious proceedings or a funeral, shall be sentenced for a breach of the sanctity of religion to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.


 * § 11 of the same chapter deals with the prevention of worship which also protects the churches and other religious communities. In addition, the religious communities may get the right of performing a valid marriages, if they wish. The religious communities are allowed to have their unpaid membership fees collected through confiscation proceedings as taxes. (Normal voluntary associations are only allowed to fire members who neglect their membership payments.) However, only the two churches can have their membership fees (church tax) collected through the normal tax collection process. Considering all the rights given to a religious community, it is surprisingly easy to found one: A religious community is founded when at least 20 adults sign a founding charter and accept the initial by-laws. Both churches and all religious communities are obligated to report the identities of their members to the population registry database. --MPorciusCato 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. State Dept. International Religious Freedom Report 2006 - Finland says (without citing further sources): ''The constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected this right in practice. According to law, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church are the established state churches.''

Based on this, it seems to me that
 * 1) That US State Dept report should be cited as a supporting source for the assertions in the Christian Countries section.
 * 2) An entry should be added to the table in in the Established churches and former state churches in Europe section naming the Finnish Orthodox Church as a state religion in Finland.
 * 3) An explanatory note should be added below that table explaining that the US State Department report is the supporting source for inclusion of both Finland entries in that table.
 * 4) The 1999 Constitution of Finland should be cited as a source supporting the designation in this table of the Evangelic Lutheran Church as a state religion of Finland.
 * 5) Supporting sources for the asserted disestablishment date(s) for the Evangelic Lutheran Church should be cited.
 * 6) The 1890(sic?) date in the table should probably be changed to 1809.

Perhaps some items (e.g., ) should be mentioned in the External links section. -- Boracay Bill 02:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the communal tax (yhteisövero) that is paid even by non-religious entrepreneurs and is partly diverted to churches? And the fact that Finnish state automatically collects church membership fees from the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church members (kirkollisvero, church tax) without them having to set up a system to collect those fees like other religious communities? Even though the Finnish state does not advance any religion directly it still does provide financial sponsorship for these two Christian churches.


 * Official institutions like the parliament also hold services of worship occasionally for their members and these are, according to my knowledge, exclusively Lutheran Christian even though the participants might not be. Of course, an Islamic representative for example could naturally abstain from participating but the system still favours Lutheran Christians as service for them is always organized but never one in a mosque or in a synagogue. In this case also, the Finnish system endorses Lutheran Christian civil servants. JJohannes (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the claim that Finland doesn't have a state religion anymore is true only nominally. The Lutheran and Orthodox churches aren't called "state churches", anymore, but "people's churches", but that's mere words. (In some countries banks owned by the state are also called "people's banks" or something similar.) However, these two churches sure have a special position in the Finnish legislation. First, the administration and organisation of the Lutheran church are prescribed by church law, passed by the Parliament of Finland, or more precisely only its members belonging to the Lutheran church. The churches gets tax revenue not only from its members, but also from all the companies regardless to whether they or their owners belong to the church or not. The taxes are collected from the church members by the state's tax authorities. The corporation tax is collected by the state's tax authorities for the state, and the Lutheran and Orthodox churches get part of it. In all schools, regardless to whether they are owned by the municipality, state or whether they are privately owned, there is obligatory religious teaching for all members of a religous community. The teachers get paid by the school. And all the conscripts in the Finnish Army who belong to the Lutheran church will swear a soldier's oath to a Lutheran minister. If this isn't a state religion, what is it? And I don't care about what it is called by the church itself, that's irrelevant. 82.181.8.94 (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Map
It would be nice if the map and the text actually agreed with one another. Orcoteuthis (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So does Bhutan for example have a state religion? Text says yes, map says no. The map may list a country as having a state religion even though it's not listed in the text. Vice versa, the text may list a country as having a state religion even though it's not colored as any state religion on the map. I just gave the example of Bhutan, but there are more examples to list, but won't. --70.194.69.100 (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've opened a related discussion (later archived here) at WT:V. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The map does not accurately reflect nations in which Roman Catholicism is the state religion and/or has special status. There are others, such as Portugal and Poland among others which have concordats with the Roman See which give special status and/or establishment, though they are not officially a part of their constitutions. Still they are national laws/treaties. So the map ought to reflect that. 71.200.152.237 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Roman Catholic Church is not **special** in Poland as far as the law is concerned. It's a recognized religion by the Ministry of Internal Affairs (among 300 others or so), and yes, there's the Concordate, but it's just a special name for a treaty between Republic of Poland and the Holy See - treaties between the RoP and others churches are called, well, treaties. The Constitution of the RoP mentions Christianity (not Catholicism) as one of the sources of the culture, but that's about it. Also it mentions God, but it says something along We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic. Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty, As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources...... There's probably nothing (wrt the privileges) that the Roman Catholic Church can do in Poland, and other denominations (which also signed treaties - there's currently 11 of them including mormons, Jews etc.) cannot (e.g. confirming marriages), at least in theory, because while having ~50% or so Poles being active members of this church, it can use some indirect political power (e.g. parties claiming to always vote as the current Catholic Church dogma requires), also many church-originating traditions are recognized by the state (e.g. holidays during x-mas, and easter holidays etc). 77.59.130.224 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on State religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116183038/http://www.priu.gov.lk:80/Cons/1978Constitution/ to http://www.priu.gov.lk/Cons/1978Constitution/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Tidy up
The whole article could do with a tidy up. The sections could be a little more uniform. Some subsections have large explanations, some have none. Some examples give references and quotes from constitutions/legislation, some don't.

I'm happy to have a go at bringing the article up to par, but I can see from the history and the talk page, there are a lot of people interested in its content, so any help and input would be welcomed. Sotakeit (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think one of the most confusing aspects of the article is that treats both state religion and state church, partly as the same thing. A government can accept a religion (for instance Roman-Catholic) as the faith of state, even if the church as an organization is governed by a supranational body such as the Vatican. Lutheranism on the other hand does not have something like the Pope. In Scandinavia the church has been integrated in the state apparatus since the reformation, so the King was effectively the archbishop in principle in charge of everything even doctrinal issues. The current situation in Norway is that the state no longer has a public religion and the church has full autonomy in doctrinal issues and appointments of clergy, but priests and bishops are still civil servants paid by the government. --— Erik Jr. 23:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The article needs some improvement, but the problem is not state religion and state church (which redirects here) not being the same. In general, the terms are often synomymous in the English language, although it is possible that state religion can be used as a somewhat broader term in the way suggested by the article in some contexts. Per Weo (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tonga
The article said that in 1928 the "King of Tonga" established a state religion. Tonga didn't have a King in 1928; it had a Queen, Salote Tupou III. I've fixed that, but, equally problematic, I can't find a reference anywhere to the Free Wesleyan Church having become the state religion that year. Some sources, indeed, say that Tonga has no state religion, and the Constitution makes no reference to one (other than to say that the Sabbath must be kept holy; it does not refer to a specific denomination). I've added a "reference needed" tag. Aridd (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Terminology and clarity
During the discussion relating to Church of Norway (this page), it appeared to me that the terminology is ambiguous. The article seems to use various concepts or labels such as state religion, established religion, state church, established church, or official religion interchangeably. Do these words really mean the same? Britannica for instance describes established church: "The church is not free to make changes in such things as doctrine, order, or worship without the consent of the state. In accepting such obligations, the church usually, though not always, receives financial support and other special privileges." This is no longer the case for the Church of Norway, still the term "folkekirke" (replaced "public religion" in 2012 constitution) is translated as "established church". Is there a distinction between "establishment of religion" and "public religion"? --— Erik Jr. 12:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly analysis
Classifying countries as having state religion or not easily ends up as OR per WP:SYNTH. A good alternative is scholarly sources on the topic, for instance Government and NGO analyses: — Erik Jr. 13:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Barrett, David B., World Christian  Encyclopedia, 1st ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1982).
 * Barrett, David B., George T. Kurian, and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001)
 * Jonathan Fox and Shmuel Sandler: Separation of Religion and State in the Twenty-First Century: Comparing the Middle East and Western Democracies. Comparative Politics, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Apr., 2005), pp. 317-335
 * Fox and Sandler classify the relation between religion and state into four broad groupings:
 * separation of religion and state
 * discrimination against minority religions
 * restrictions on majority religions
 * religious legislation.
 * the U. S. State Department publishes its annual report, the International Religious Freedom Report, which documents the extent of religious freedom in most countries.
 * Freedom House has a project to develop indicators of religious freedom