Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 7 May 2007

Is Danmark secular?

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

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)

THE UNITED KINGDOM 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.

=== 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).

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.

Ireland

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

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

Merge Laïcité here & extends this article here

I propose to merge "Laïcité" here, as we use English words on Anglo-Saxon Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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)

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)

Query

Israel doesn't seem to be a secular state. http://en.wikipedia.org/Religion_in_Israel#Marriage_and_religious_authority . Can anyone seriously describe that as secular? I also dispute whether Spain is a secular state ("the church is economically sustained by the state" - http://en.wikipedia.org/Religion_in_Spain#Today ; "religion class is taken in accordance with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church" - http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

Has the USA always been secular?

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