07/05/2023 – Religion & Government Part 3: Models of Establishment

What should the relationship be between government and religion? Should they be completely separate? Should they find ways of working together for common goals in society? Or, should there be a state-endorsed religion? This is the third of a great three-episode series. Check this out. This is TenOnReligion.

Hey peeps, it’s Dr. B. with TenOnReligion. If you like religion and philosophy content one thing I really need you to do is to smash that sub button because it really helps out the channel. The transcripts are available at TenOnReligion.com and new episodes are posted every two weeks, at noon, U.S. Pacific time, so drop me some views.

We’re at the end of a three-part series on the issue of church and state, or more broadly, religion and government, based on a book titled, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Six Democracies. This is the third and most recent edition of this book which came out in 2017. The relationship between religion and government in these six countries are grouped into three pairs which are the three episodes in this series. If you haven’t watched the first two episodes yet, go check them out. The first episode introduced the topic, and covered the first pair of the United States and France under the category of models of separation. The second episode covered the Netherlands and Australia under the category of models of pluralism. This episode will cover England and Germany under the category of models of establishment followed by a super important point in the conclusion to the entire three-episode series. So, make sure you listen to the end. Let’s get started.

The book covers six western liberal democracies have which sought to deal with the relationship between church and state yet approached the question in different ways. The challenge of pluralism is how best to live together when driven apart by issues defined by religious faith, yet still honor the idea that diversity is important to the common good. There are three driving questions here posed by the authors. First, how far can a democratic government go in permitting religiously motivated behavior that is contrary to society’s welfare or norms? For example, does the religious freedom of one group harm others in public health or safety or normal functioning of society? Not just things like human sacrifice or polygamy but also the role of women in society. Second, should the state encourage and promote consensual religious beliefs and traditions in an attempt to support the common values and virtues that bind a society together and make possible limited, democratic government? And third, when religious groups and the state are both active in the same fields of endeavor, how can one ensure that the state does not advantage or disadvantage any one religious group, or either religious or secular belief systems over others? Advantaging could mean funding of some religious groups but not others or creating laws benefiting one religion over another. The goal here should be for a government to be evenhanded toward people of all faiths and of none. All six countries selected for inclusion in the study are stable democracies, religiously pluralistic, and each with distinctly different approaches to church-state issues. Let’s get into the third model.

In both England and Germany, the state and the church form a partnership in advancing the cause of religion and the state. Church and state are seen as two pillars on which a stable, prosperous society rests. The authors categorize them as models of establishment. As we start with England, we first need to clear up a few things regarding geography. England is a country. Great Britain is England, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom is Great Britain plus Northern Ireland. England proper contains roughly 80 percent of the UK population which is currently more than 67 million people. Unlike other countries in this book, England does not have a written constitution, and England vies with France as the least churched country of the six. Throughout the 20th century, religion became politically less important with politics slowly becoming more indifferent to religion rather than hostile to religion.

The Church of England has been established since mid-1500’s. However, most of the privileges given to the established church now applies to other faiths as well and the religious establishment of the Church of England sustains a cultural assumption that religion has a public function to perform, meaning political and religious authorities should negotiate on key policy issues of interest to both of them. Since both the church and state support other denominations other than the Anglican Church, politicized disputes largely disappeared from British politics, but perhaps recently reemerged after the latest edition of this book was last published. The ties between the Church and the state are strong and the power of the establishment model runs deep. They are still very much intertwined. For example, by law, the monarch is the head of the Church and may not be a Roman Catholic, nor marry one. Key leaders in the Church of England have automatic membership in the House of Lords and attempts to change it to make it open to all faiths have been blocked by conservatives.

The state does pursue policies that accommodate organized religion as a whole because of a shared conviction that religion is morally and socially beneficial. There is little formal political opposition to the religious establishment. Religious leaders and the British public perceive the religious establishments as, at best, a source of social cohesion and consensus and, at worst, as harmless. Since there is no formal written constitution or bill of rights, English courts have not historically been a forum where religious groups have been able to protest their treatment. The protection of religious liberty rights for new religious movements is not as certain because their practices are not as socially accepted as more established traditions such as forms of Christianity and Judaism.

Now a few thoughts on education. The Education Act of 1944 created a dual system with state-run and religious schools sharing the responsibility for the education of children. Most religious schools in England are part of the state system, and thus public. This means that what Americans would call private schools are largely public in England and what Americans would call public schools are largely private non-religious schools in England. It’s a little strange from the American perspective. There is a strong desire on the part of parents, who may or may not be religiously active, for their children to have a religious education. Thus, church schools understand their role as offering a valuable public service. Since the 1944 Education Act, Anglicans and Roman Catholics became partners with the state in policy formation, especially concerning education. The British educational policy demonstrates healthy neutrality on the part of the state between a religious and nonreligious perspective, and stands in stark contrast to policy in the United States that disadvantages parents who desire an education for their children in the context of their religious beliefs. While on its surface the law clearly preferences Christianity, in practice most religious education content takes a multicultural and multifaith approach to the topic. The religious establishment is not aggressively Christian.

Buttt… there is a key question regarding the relationship of religion and government in England. One major issue is if religious practice continues to decrease, what appeal will there be in seeing religion as the basis for consensual moral values in society? The religious establishment serves as an acknowledgment by the state that faith has a public character to it, and that public policy can accommodate faith in a way that is equitable among religious groups and between religious and nonreligious perspectives. Yet, it does not provide religious freedom for all or equal treatment among religions because the law clearly preferences one religious viewpoint over others. Perhaps, the remedy to move forward is to expand the current system to recognize more religious traditions, but this will be limited by those who wish to defend a specifically Christian establishment and this will also be limited by secular voices. Still, England seems to be firmly in the establishment category.

Now on to Germany, which currently has over 81 million people and is about one-third Protestant, one-third Catholic, and one-third nonreligious. The German Constitution clearly states that there shall be no state church. Freedom of religion, however, is seen as a positive freedom in that positive efforts by the government ensure that religious people are in a position to exercise the freedoms assured them. The goal of this church-state partnership is a prosperous, stable German society.

Historically, back in the day, Germany as a nation-state did not exist, but rather was a host of kingdoms loosely tied together following the practice of cuius regio, eius religio (the religion of the ruler is the religion of the state). I’m pretty sure my Latin pronunciation needs some work there. What was called the “two swords” concept took deep root in many areas meaning the two authorities of the church and civil rulers. In theory they were coequal, although over time the secular authority came to dominate over the spiritual one. In 1945, after the Nazi regime was defeated, The Evangelical Church in Germany issued the Stuttgart Declaration acknowledging guilt for not more strictly opposing the Nazis. This highly traumatic era in German history left two lasting implications for church-state relations. One, the church flirts with enormous danger when it is too subservient to the state. And two, the church must play a role in the political and social life of the nation. The new constitution in West Germany banned a state church and the new bill of rights included freedom of religion. In East Germany the state tolerated churches so long as they were not too political. After reunification in the early 1990’s, Germany as a whole became more secular.

In Germany, the free exercise of religion is generally more important than the establishment of religion. For example, allowing prayers in schools makes room for children who want to voluntarily pray and disallowing prayers violates their freedom to pray. This is how freedom of religion is seen as a positive freedom. It is seen as neutral because such free exercise rights extend to all people of all religious faiths as well as those who have no religious faith. The government does not promote any particular faith, but actively creates space for allowing religious behavior. The tricky part is when the free exercise of religion infringes on human dignity or public health and safety. When this happens a certain balancing or weighing process must take place.

One thing that would seem very strange to Americans is that the three historical religious communities – Evangelical Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish – have corporation status and tax their members. This is a set fee which is deducted from one’s paycheck along with income taxes. Membership in one of these groups follows that person throughout the rest of their life unless they undergo a formal legal process to resign their membership. The tax money finances the religions’ operations as well as their charitable and educational efforts. The civil authorities collect the taxes and retain a small percentage to cover their expenses before sending the money to the churches. This demonstrates how strong the cooperative venture is between the churches and the civil authorities. Even if one is no longer active in their religious community, they still are required to pay the tax. Critics say the system makes the churches overly complacent. They don’t have to be creative since they’re getting their money anyway. Yet even today, over 60 percent of Germans are part of the church tax system and view them as socially important institutions regardless of their personal participation.

Concerning education in Germany, there are three types of schools: governmental, governmental religious, and private, with private only accounting for about five percent of the students. Home-schooling in Germany is illegal. This is again in stark contrast to the United States where preference is given to the rights of parents to educate their children. In Germany, the emphasis is put on the government’s obligation to provide a good education for children.

Though Germany does not have a formally established church like England, the church-state partnership creates in some sense a partial establishment. The state assists the churches by making room for religious practice. Such accommodation is viewed as essential to religious pluralism. The prevailing attitude is that removal of religious references in society and education may be neutral among contending religious traditions, but it is not neutral between religion and secular viewpoints. One of the challenges of the German system is when new traditions emerge in society via immigration or other means. Islam, for example, does not possess a centralized religious organization in Germany and thus there is difficulty in the state partnering with it because the state needs a representative body as a negotiating partner.

In both England and Germany, the state and the church form a partnership in advancing the cause of religion and the state. That is why the authors categorize them as models of establishment. Under this model church and state are seen as two pillars on which a stable, prosperous society rests. So, what do you think about the models of establishment category? Do you think England or Germany has the best implementation of this model?

So, let’s try to wrap up this religion and government series. In part one we talked about models of separation with the United States and France. In part two we talked about models of pluralism with the Netherlands and Australia. And in part three, this part, we talked about models of establishment with England and Germany. Now here’s the super important point. Church-state practice is hugely influenced by a nation’s unique history and cultural assumptions. Practices that are largely unquestioned in one country are unimaginable in other countries. But perhaps countries can learn from each other’s experiences. Each basically protects religious liberty but struggles with how to interpret that in specific instances. Religious freedom can occur through language written in the constitution, legislation of law creation, or cultural attitudes and assumptions. One thing is clear. Not all countries protect religious freedom equally with respect to dominant and minority religious groups. In all six countries, religion has a public influence, but a more robust form of religious freedom requires the state to take positive measures aimed at protecting and promoting the religious expression of groups or communities in the public sphere in the same way that the state protects secular worldviews. Only a few countries, like the Netherlands for example, are neutral among all religions and between religious and secular systems of belief. All six countries recognize that some values are more fundamental than religious belief in society such that religious freedom cannot be the grounds to violate the public health, safety, and social welfare of all citizens. Things like human sacrifice, child sexual abuse, or violence towards others is not to be tolerated even if it were a part of a group’s religious beliefs.

The goal is to have educated citizens who can effectively assimilate culturally into a nation’s society. This occurs largely through the educational system, and all countries differ on its implementation and on the proper relation between the state and religion. How and in what way do schools support the respective democratic values that the state believes would lead to a stable society? Also, even when the majority of citizens believe religious instruction in all schools is helpful to understand religious pluralism and promote peace, there is little agreement about what the state should promote, or how this should be accomplished.

In general, if government neutrality is to be maintained, the state must only restrict the practices of communities when it has a compelling or significant purpose in society. This should not be decided on the basis of the political or social power of long-dominant religious groups in the country. At the same time, it is extremely difficult for states to promote consensual religious values and still maintain religious neutrality. To do so puts religious minorities in a state-created disadvantage. Also, a strict separation of church and state violates state religious neutrality because religious and nonreligious viewpoints are not treated in an evenhanded manner. Loyalty to one’s religious group must not become so all-consuming that it is not balanced by loyalty to the nation, or in some cases, a confusion between the two, because this might threaten the peaceful coexistence of a pluralistic society. When politicians attempt to use specific religions to assert their power, tensions and even violent conflicts can arise among people who are not of the dominant faith. The goal is religious freedom for all without the government either to favor or to hinder with the purpose of creating and maintaining a democracy in the midst of religious diversity.

And there you have it. I hope you’ve enjoyed this three-part series on religion and government. Which model do you think is best – separation, pluralism, or establishment? Which of these six countries has the best template for the relationship between religion & government? Leave a comment below and let me know what you think. Until next time, stay curious. If you enjoyed this, support the channel in the link below, please like and share this video and subscribe to this channel. This is TenOnReligion.

J. Christopher Soper, Keven R. den Dulk and Stephen V. Monsma, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Six Democracies. Third Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowland & Littlefield, 2017.