The question of the interaction of state and religion has long perplexed constitutional scholars.
The places of religion and state and how best to preserve each has been of utmost importance to religious leaders and political leaders hoping for a peaceful society. In many countries of the world at present, the point is acute and religion and politics have the capacity to undo each other.
The nature of the church and state as well as their interaction has been addressed by philosophers and theologians going back to St. Augustine in A.D. 400. 1 Previously, Jesus Christ taught that one should render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. 2 Going forward there has been a gathering body of standards for interaction between church and state that have stood the test of experience. As we see developing countries and constitutions in the world, scholars may compare their approaches for free exercise of religion against what has been discussed and tested in past centuries. The purpose of this discussion will be to compare modern legal standard approaches for the free exercise of religion, to long-held philosophical standards.
Four Philosophical Bases for Church and State Interaction
Is there a value that religion transcends the state?
As values are expressed in constitutional points, is there evidence that the value of religion transcends that of the state? St. Augustine, in responding to the defeat of a Christian Roman empire by the Goths in 400 A.D., reasoned that man’s religious nature transcends the state. Man belongs to a heavenly city and, therefore, even if one’s earthly state is defeated, one’s heavenly citizenship remains intact. 3 In fact, Augustine made it clear that everything in this temporal world is subject to defeat; religious nature transcends the temporal. 4
The Enlightenment Thinker, John Locke, reasoned that man comes into a state of community for the practical reasons of realizing a safer and more peaceful living with others. This includes defense against those who are not in the community. 5 This compact is for the benefit of the person deciding to join a particular community who sees greater advantages to join than not to join.
John Suart Mill, also of the Enlightenment era, discussed the extent of the necessary power of the state over the individual. Where the necessary power stops is termed ‘liberty.’ Mill reasoned that as long as one did not make a nuisance of himself to other people, he should be allowed to have opinions and to carry them in to practice. There should be different experiments of living and character as long as there is no injury to others. Further, individuality is one of the essentials of well-being. 6
Political philosophers of the Enlightenment saw that the reasons for the state were very practical, and earthbound, such as providing for justice and the common defense. Thomas Jefferson, American constitutional framer, then agreed that constitutions, as compacts, were more in the nature of tools to set up basic government political systems and protections. 7 Therefore, the idea that the Constitution should set up basic government structures and not dictate matters of belief is one of the lessons of history and standards to judge the possibility of a well-accepted modern constitution.
Is there a value that religious thought is intellectually and morally free to lead in ethics?
As political leaders work out various strategies of power, historically it has been irresistible to some to try to harness the power of beliefs and more specifically, the church. One of the more recent, and yet powerful, cases has been the philosophers and actors surrounding Nazi Germany in the early 1900’s. Carl Schmitt, in his book, Political Theologies, discusses his views of the nature of the sovereignty of the state. Schmitt argues that it is the nature and prerogative of sovereignty to say what a problem is and what the solution for the problem should be. That sovereignty should mean unlimited sovereign prerogative. 8
Because of the philosophical context of state sovereignty given by Schmitt, the Nazis demanded complete allegiance to their values and system, including complete allegiance from the church. On Hitler’s rise to power, German Christians with support of the Nazi state, sought to become recognized as the “state” Church of Germany. In order to become the state church, the church adopted a Platform of Guiding Principles in 1932. Among the points of the state church Platform was unqualified support of Hitler and his totalitarian state, support of all measures to maintain the purity of the Aryan race, theological education appointments made on political alignments, and the identification of the advance of the Nazi Reich with the coming kingdom of God. 9
For Carl Schmitt, true state sovereignty made complete sense as the term “sovereignty” is defined. However, the problem came immediately in the details of what this totalitarian regime would choose to do with its sovereignty. And, instead of most of the church leaders and people of conscience being an independent and leveling force in the culture and state, they were lost in action, having been subsumed by the state. 10 On Karl Barth’s Confessing Church, which stood against the move to have a state church, Einstein wrote:
Only the Church (the Confessing Church) stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth. I never had any special interest in the church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly. 11
The treatment of the church, religious freedom and the freedom of beliefs is the bellwether of intellectual freedom in a society. Further, when it is independent, religion is able to check the state.
Is there a reasonableness to religious life within the state?
The reason the state exists and that a social contract is formed is for the purpose of a peaceful prosperous existence. The Enlightenment philosophers postulated that the reason anyone would submit themselves to the authority of the state was so that they could experience a predictable order instead of a life at the mercy of whoever had the most power. Therefore, a consideration of the fabric of a society and caring for the overall peaceful interaction is of utmost concern in the composition of state constitutions.
Kant, a German philosopher living in the 1700s, is central to modern philosophy in that he advised that reason is a source of morality along with our experience. 12 One may then reason what sort of measures will produce a peaceful society by considering what experience teaches. A peaceful practical provision for religious nature will, therefore, be needed as people are filled with belief systems of various kinds. Even disavowing of religious belief has its own belief system.
In past eras, when travel was not nearly so possible, countries could be organized around one religion as groups stayed together. In a changing and mobile modern world, the endeavor to keep one’s country built around one religion is going to become more and more difficult. 13 In future circumstances, then, we will be especially concerned about the creation of tolerance for minority ideas and beliefs in countries.
John Locke wrote that one who tries to get another man into his “…absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him.” 14 Certainly, the purpose of joining into a compact and coming under government is to live a peaceful existence. Therefore, to end the war within countries in the future, there will have to be reasonableness and avoidance of the extreme. It will be reasonable to be tolerant of minority religions within countries, because circumstances of more travel and diversity will dictate a reasonableness toward people wth different ideas.
Experience has shown us that the state is headed for chaos when it embraces any kind of extremism. Extremism by its nature seeks to eliminate elements it deems impure. While the state is involved in a search for order, the search for order cannot become its extreme goal. Instead, the order must be of a type that allows for the eccentricities of the human spirit.
Is there a value that religion nurtures the individual?
In contrast to the considerations for creating an overall tolerant ordered society, care for the individual must have special consideration in the overall constitutional scheme. Not only should the prerogatives of an individual’s beliefs be preserved, but those prerogatives must be balanced against the prerogatives of every other person living in the society.
Going back to the Reformation, philosophers and theologians decried the abuses of the individual at the hands of the church. For example, abusive practices such as indulgences which served to fatten the church purses became one of the grounds for many reforms of the church. 15 The state may also serve as a check on the abuses of organized religion as it affects citizens.
As the recent constitution of Nepal was developing, a concern was expressed about foreign travelers entering the country for the purpose of proselytization. 16 There is a danger when citizens are given all kinds of items of value in trade for their conversion to a different religion. To the Nepalese leaders, this seemed to amount to bribery and abuse rather than a choice based on conviction. However, a prohibition on sharing faith seemed to the rest of the world as going too far in the other direction. So, how to balance the interests of freedom to share one’s faith versus freedom from religious coercion is a balance to strike.
Religion, in general, provides for strictures in practice. But, the question is whether an individual is free to choose these strictures. If one chooses strictures only by force, then that condition is tantamount to slavery. And, upon that condition, the state has the right to step in and guarantee that a person does not live in slavery.
Setting aside examples of church abuse, religious teachings have more typically been the cause of much charity toward individuals. For example, set against a male-dominant culture in the first century, Jesus Christ taught the value of women. 17 The abolition of slavery movement was promoted by Christians. 18 Social justice promoting individuals that have been oppressed is one of the goals of present-day Catholicism. 19 Religion that should find protection from the state is one that nurtures and does not exploit the individual.
The United States Constitution
The constitutional interaction between church and state flowing from the U.S. Constitution is provided first by Article VI which prohibits religious oaths being required from officials. 20 This prohibition was in reaction to the experience of European wars caused by the official head of state also being head of an official religion to the exclusion of other religions. The second provision is the first clause of the first amendment to the Constitution. The religion clause of the first amendment provides “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” This provision, as part of the first ten amendments, referred to as the Bill of Rights, protects the individual.21
As the Constitutional provisions have been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, whose Constitutional rulings are on the same authoritative level as the Constitution, certain principles have come forward. 22 The first principle is a neutrality of state toward religion. Neutrality can mean different things; the general rule, with significant exceptions, for the United States and religion is accommodation. State accommodation of religion can be seen in many areas. For example, the state pays for chaplains in the military. The state pays for chaplains in prisons. The state recognizes the religious nature of most of its citizens and seeks to accommodate that nature. 23
The exception in which we see a strict legal separation between church and state is in public school for children under the age of 18. 24 For these children, because they are compelled by law to be in public school, the rule is strict separation of church and state. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized parental rights to teach children what they want their children to know on the subject of religion. Additionally, in a growing multicultural society, the U.S. Supreme Court does not want any child embarrassed or coerced on the subject of religion. 25
The rule of strict separation of church and state in public schools affects the teachers and administrators who are seen to be an arm of the government. If the children are not otherwise disruptive or coerced, then they may express themselves religiously. For example, in a situation such as the students wanting to pray around the school flagpole early in the morning before school starts, the program would be constitutionally allowed primarily because it is before school when children are not forced to be there. 26
As for the general rule of accommodation of religion found in the rest of society, officials must not run afoul of the Endorsement prohibition. The Endorsement test asks if the reasonable or average citizen in a locale thinks the government has just endorsed an official religion there.27 The Endorsement test harkens back to the Constitutional prohibition in Article VI against an official religion. For example, if a citizen of a community is driving past a city-owned park close to Christmas time and sees that the city has put up a display of Santa and his reindeer, and a crèche of baby Jesus with Mary and Joseph, and a Jewish Star of David, then are those symbols a violation of the Constitutional Endorsement prohibition? The answer is no. Because of the plurality of symbols, the average reasonable citizen should not think the government there has just endorsed an official religion.28
Because Americans are generally a very religious people, there is much overlap and confusion in all of the framework set up by the U.S. Supreme Court. Whenever the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a religious practice needs to be curtailed, the ruling is interpreted by many to mean that the government is trying to fashion a godless society, which is not the case. Other areas of confusion exist in history and practice such as the words “In God we Trust” appearing on American currency which is used throughout society and in public schools. Public buildings have long had religious words inscribed in the actual granite. In general, if the carvings or words have been there a long time, then people are probably not gathering that there is an official state religion that has just been endorsed.29
The subject of religious exercise and prayer in public life is a subject of confusion on many occasions. For example, is the American President allowed to put his hand on the Bible in his inauguration to be the President of the United States? Is he allowed to pray at public events? The lawyerly answer, of course, is that it depends. If the President is doing this at an official public school event for children under 18, then legally he should refrain from religious exercise. Otherwise, he can express himself religiously as long as the reasonable perception is not that the country has an official religion. The tradition in the United States is that citizens do not have an official religion, so it is a difficult presumption to leap to that suddenly an official religion has been declared. Ultrasensitive citizens may claim that the President needs to refrain in every setting due to separation of church and state, but that is not the legal framework. The United States Supreme Court has strengthened that framework in the 2014 case of Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway, in which the United States Supreme Court said there are certain traditions of prayer that can very well exist in disestablishment jurisprudence, that the reasonable message was not that an official religion had been established. 30
The U.S. Supreme Court consistently asks the same questions. In the Rosenberger case in 1993, Mr. Rosenberger had questioned the student fees practice of the University of Virginia, a state run school of higher education. In that case, the University of Virginia charged student fees which then supported the publications of every student organization on campus. One of the student publications came from a Christian organization. Mr. Rosenberger argued that, Constitutionally, students at a state run university could not be charged to support a Christian organization. The U.S. Supreme Court said, first, that students were not under 18, forced by law to be at a public institution. Instead the students were there by choice. And, since the situation did not fall into the strict separation of church and state exception and was instead subject to accommodation, the University was supporting all of the organizations in a viewpoint neutral way. If the University is going to support what one group has to say, then the free-speech implications are that the University has to support what every group has to say. One would believe then, that the future of the free exercise of religion is intertwined with the first amendment clause providing freedom of speech. 31
Considering the United States Constitution by the Philosophical Bases
The tradition in the United States, reflected in the U.S. Constitution, is that religion transcends the state. Whereas many citizens might believe that the country is more important than religion and that religion should take an inferior position to the state, the general value is that the two matters are separate no matter how you rank church and state. The confusion comes in that political values and how one votes are informed by one’s values. Religion is one of the major sources of personal and in turn political values.
The prevalence of Christianity in the United States results in a dominant culture of Christianity. This taught Christian culture is reflected in politics as above described. Still, by the U.S. Constitution, how you practice whatever belief system you have is by law and tradition a very personal endeavor.
In the United States there will typically be a very robust open discussion of what laws will be passed by a legislature. The U.S. Constitution set up these institutions to allow for this robust discussion. This discussion is inevitably filled with personal opinions, viewpoints and lessons of experience. Inevitably, some of this discussion comes from religious values. There is no prohibition on various representatives coming from different religious backgrounds or no religious background. To date, representatives are being elected from many more diverse backgrounds as their experiences and solutions resonate with voters.
The United States has a rich history of free speech and freedom of ideas which includes freedom of religious thought and practice. This plurality of ideas results in a marketplace of ideas for people to choose beliefs that make sense to their lives. First amendment values not only count for the happiness and fulfillment of the individual, the purpose of first amendment values is also for a check on government intrusion, power and ethics. The church, leads as a check on government, because the church inherently asks whether people are being treated as valuable in society.
For free speech from any group, religious or otherwise, to function properly as a check on government, the entities involved have to be independent. While church leaders are not chosen by the state, there now exists pressure on the church to conform to changing governmental views. For example, whether the church as an employer will have to adopt sweeping government programs that would include religiously objectionable points. Another question is whether employment practices mandated by the government will have to be adopted by churches and other religious institutions that would normally have clear viewpoint and belief preferences. The United States Supreme Court in its 2014 opinion, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, strengthened the position of organizations that object to government dictating practices that violate religious viewpoints of the organization, or as in Hobby Lobby, a closely-held corporation. 32
One of the most clear lines of independence between church and state in the United States is that the church is exempt from taxation. Yet, in a time of fiscal stress, it has been suggested that the church should be taxed. Going back to 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court taught that the power to tax is the power to kill. In that case the question was whether the states would be able to tax the federal government, to which the answer was no as that would be a misuse of power from states toward the federal government. 33 So, there should be no state taxation of the church because ultimately the state could tax the church out of existence.
On the subject of the ability of the U.S. Constitution to provide the conditions for an overall reasonableness to life and religion rather than extremism, checks and balances in the Constitution tend to lead toward moderation, consensus and compromise. On the other hand, this process may be a lengthy one. In the political process of the legislative branch, the original design, according to the federalist papers, was for representatives to be a filter on the harsh and oppressive effects of majority voting.34 The purpose of representatives was to care for the general welfare and not to necessarily represent 51 percent majorities which would most likely be formed around selfish interests.31
In the American experiment with representative democracy, representatives seem to be very responsive to the majority voting blocks that keep them in office. This hyper-responsiveness can result in various types of extremism. Eventually,though, representatives have to deal with 534 others in Congress who are also acutely aware of their constituency preferences, and this challenge can soften extreme views.
Lastly, how does the U.S. Constitution provide for religion to nurture the individual? From the first amendment, the thrust is that the individual should be protected against the government and receive protection from the government.35 Under U. S. Supreme Court protection and jurisprudence, the freedom to believe and speak should be respected by the government except when those actions will hurt other citizens. 36 In accommodating religion in the United States, the government has had a hard time defining a legitimate religion which will receive first amendment accommodation. It might be considered that whether beliefs nurture the individual, or exploit and abuse the individual, could be part of a legal definition of religion that would receive U.S. government protection.
For a government that seeks to accommodate the religious nature of its people, the question is sometimes a practical one. If someone in prison claims they worship Satan, will they be able to have a chaplain? And if so, do they need to agree with the chaplain on all theological points? 37 Are smaller groups, such as Satanists, subject to the same accomodations as traditional mainstream religions? Part of the scrutiny could and should be whether this belief system nurtures or exploits the individuals involved. Cults of various belief systems should be scrutinized thusly.
Developing constitutional systems in the world
As the world gets smaller values are subject to globalization for the needs of human rights and smooth interactions. The move to globalize the value of religious and belief tolerance has been going on for decades. In 1948, the United Nations passed “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Specifically, in Article 18, the Declaration provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion… .” Further, in Article 19, the Declaration provides that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression…and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 38
This United Nations mandate has been carried forward in countless other documents. The United Nations put forward the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” in 1966. The Covenant provides that individuals are protected from religious coercion with special protection given to children.39 In 1981, the United Nations put forward the “Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief” because, it was noted, that discrimination was so acute as to still be the cause of many wars. 40
By 1998, the United States had also recognized this clear causal relationship between modern wars and religion, and so passed ”The International Religious Freedom Act.” The Act established an Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom within the Department of State.41 By inference then, the 1948 United Nations Declaration, while philosophically and technically correct, did not solve the problem of religious intolerance in the world.
Perplexed by the jihadist war begun on the events of September 11, 2001, in which Muslim extremists attacked the United States, killing approximately 3,000 and wounding countless others. World organizations have put out subsequent documents calling for peace and tolerance. They include young people in Bakuriani, Georgia, issuing the “Bakuriani Declaration,” the United Nations work on the ”Alliance of Civilizations” in 2006 which came from talks that included the call for interfaith cooperation. In 2007, the United Nations again issued a ”Resolution on Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination” based on religion or belief, citing concern over religious extremism which resulted in systematic violence and discrimination against groups such as women, along with discrimination toward religious groups. 42
Groups have called for better education on the subject of religious tolerance and understanding. In 2007, the Inter-Parliamentary Union issued their “Resolution Ensuring Respect for and Peaceful Co-existence between all Religious Communities and Beliefs in a Globalized World.” The Resolution calls on parliaments to provide for education on religious tolerance and the value of personal choice. The 2008 “European Council of Religious Leaders’ Berlin Declaration on Interreligious Dialogue” calls for education through dialogue. 43
The present considering the four philosophical and theological standards
Is there a value that religion transcends the state? In the international documents, the value of the individual and the individual’s right to belief and religion as a matter of one’s own conscience is abundantly clear as above mentioned. In the democratic revolutions and rewriting of constitutions in the middle east, the value of personal expression is also clear. Yet, we see regimes come to power that seemingly have no power or will to protect the individual’s right to free religious thought. In Egypt, government under the leadership of democratically-elected Morsi allowed for terrible instances of persecution of religious minorities. The political party that put Morsi in power, was, in fact, religiously based and did not lead in tolerance for minority religions.44 Further, in Iraq, government leader al-Maliki has been criticized and attacked for preferring one religious people over another.45
Is there a value that religion is able to lead in intellectual and moral freedom? Religion may be constitutionally mandated as separate from the state in most modern countries and developing countries. However, when the religious power gets mixed up in the state power, the religious power loses its ability to lead intellectually and morally. In severe examples in the middle east, examples of religious-based violence will many times have nothing to do with religion. It would better be considered political or turf wars featuring mafia-style violence. The government may be subject to corruption or undue influence from various groups and these groups may term themselves with religious names. These sectarian groups hope to have an identification and the protection and sympathy that may be afforded to religions. 47
Is there a reasonableness to religious life? World documents presently provide for a reasonableness on the subject of religion as opposed to extremism. National constitutions have called for an accommodation and reasonableness even when providing for an official state religion. Yet, when leaders of developing countries ascend to power, they have been apt to represent their personal religion and not care for all of the people. This is a misuse and misunderstanding of democracy. In fact, if it is not in the tradition of a country for leadership to care for all of the people, the country’s constitution may help with this reasonableness. There is a move in the new constitution in Eqypt to include a prohibition on political parties with identification based on religion, race, gender, geography.48
Is there a value that religion nurtures the individual? Balancing the personal needs of individuals to all who believe and practice their beliefs will always be challenging. The 2005 article in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, that depicted a cartoon figure of Muhammad, resulted in world-wide protests and the deaths of 100 people. In wrestling with this problem, legally, the proper provisions and prohibitions are in place. Yet, there existed a problem of leadership in that while freedoms were exercised and vindicated, the players did not consider the need for sensitivity.49
The subject of coercion of the individual has gained much attention. Religious faith somehow produces the urge to share and reproduce. Much work and consideration has been given to the protection of individuals against religious coercion that abuses individuals.50 In the extreme, one may see a ban on proselytization in new constitutions because of past coercion. Yet, this may also be a ban on legitimate expression. On the other hand, one may see countries that will try to track and prohibit cults, which by definition, abuses individuals and dictates religious belief and practice. 51
Of even more concern, is the treatment of vulnerable groups in the world. Women are still experiencing systematic oppression in countries of the world because of state religions that have traditionally oppressed women. Children are a particular problem because of the value to allow a child to be taught religion by the child’s parents. But, what if the child is forced to do practices such as wear a headcloth that the child does not want to do? Or what if a female child may not be educated because of systematic government discrimination due to a state religion?
The problem of leadership.
Thomas Jefferson said that democracy requires an educated and virtuous electorate. 52 That if the people are to lead, then they have to be responsible to be informed and reflect well-reasoned decisionmaking. World bodies have produced theologically and philosophically correct documents, sound legal and moral documents for the legitimate purposes of a peaceful world in which residents may experience dignity in life. Yet, even with these sound documents, the conflagration of the Arab Spring reminds us that documents alone cannot produce proper ends. The problem lies in leadership.
All law is a framework, actual people have to bring a peaceful conscientious reality into being. Even as the United States Constitution provides for checks and balances , the U.S. has known periods when corruption was widespread and pervasive in some areas. In fighting corruption in Chicago of the 1930’s, the laws were in place to prohibit illegality, yet there had to be courageous people who would stand up to the corruption.53
In the middle east, King Hussein of Jordan could have been primarily interested in amassing and protecting riches, yet he chose to be a voice for moderation and reasonableness in the region.54 By contrast, Egyptian President Morsi could have been sympathetic to all of the religions residing in his country and brought in leaders from every element to help rule, yet he chose to exclude other leaders and produced an intolerance that led to violence and his own ouster. 55 Repeating the mistake, the vulnerable country of Iraq has been subject to President al-Maliki who is roundly criticized for preferring his own religious group, thus producing turmoil. 56
Documents and a myriad of legal systems can be rated for their capacity to produce a religiously tolerant society. Indeed, if the legal framework for tolerance does not exist, then there are no goals to pursue. Yet, in the end, goals have to be valued and pursued by leaders.
1. Dods, Marcus, D.D., Preface to The City of God, Hendrickson Publishers, 3rd Printing, 2011. p. xiii.
2. Matthew 22:21, The Bible.
3. St. Augustine of Hippo, City of God, Book Nineteen, p.640. Translated by Marcus Dods, D.D., Hendrickson Publishers, 3rd Printing, 2011.
4. Ibid., Book Nineteen, p. 618 (noting that even friends can’t be trusted in this world).
5. Locke, John, The Second Treatise of Government, Macmillan Library of Liberal Arts, 1985, p. 54.
6. Mill, J.S., On Liberty, The Penguin English Library, Middlesex, 1985, p. 119.
7. Peterson, Merrill D., The Atlantic Monthly, Jefferson and Religious Freedom, December 1994
8. Schmitt, Carl, Political Theology, p. 13. Translated by George Schwab, University of Chicago Press, 1985.
9. Barth, Karl, Church and State, p. 12. Translated by G. Ronald Howe, Introduction by David Mueller, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2nd Printing, 2009.
10. Ibid., p.15,
11. Ibid., p.14
12. Kant, Immanuel, Philosophy of Law, included in The Great Legal Philosophers, edited by Clarence Morris, University of Pennsylvania Press, p. 240.
13. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/04/02/catholic-church (historically islamic homogeneous Qatar now allowing Christian churches to be built since 2008).
14. John Locke, p. 11, 12.
15. Bainton, Roland, Here I Stand, Abingdon Press, Nashville. P. 73.
16 Griffiths, David, The Guardian, Religious Freedom in Nepal, April 27, 2010.
17. Galatians 3:28. New American Standard version, The Bible.
18. American Anti-Slavery Society, Declaration of Sentiments, Philadelphia, Dec.6, 1833.
19. Vatican II, The Church in The Modern World, Chapter 2, #26.
20. United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3.
21. United States Constitution, 1st Amendment.
22. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)(United States Supreme Court has power of judicial review).
23. Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783(1983).
24. Lee v. Weissman, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992).
25. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).
26. Santa&Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
27. County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 109 S.Ct. 3086 (1989).
28. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
29. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
30 a. Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway, United States Supreme Court Slip Opinion, decided May 5, 2014.
31. Rosenberger v.Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia, 115 S.Ct. 2510 (1995).
32 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, United States Supreme Court Slip Opinion, decided June 30, 2014.
33. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).
34. “Federalist, No. 10” attributed to James Madison. 1787.
35. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Springfield, Mass. 2002. Listing the definition of Civil liberties as “freedom from arbitrary governmental interference,” and Civil Rights as “rights that guarantee to all citizens equal opportunities.”
36. Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145.
37. Stuart, Elizabeth, Deseret News, Prison chaplains: The ups and downs of ministering to the incarcerated, April 10, 2012.
38. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, The United Nations. Articles 18, 19.
39. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, The United Nations. Article 18.
40. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, 1981, The United Nations. Preamble.
41. The International Religious Freedom Act, 1998, United States Congress. Preamble.
42. Bakuriani Declaration, 2006, The Declaration was by religious youth leaders in interreligious dialogue who declared the establishment of the Central and Eastern European Interreligious Youth Network. Alliance of Civilizations, Report of the High-level Group, 2006, The United Nations. Article 5.19. Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief; Resolution 6/37, 2007. Section 9.(c).
43. Resolution Ensuring Respect for and Peaceful Co-existence between all Religious Communities and Beliefs in a Globalized World, 2007, Inter-Parliamentary Union, Geneva, Switzerland. Section B. European Council of Religious Leaders’ Berlin Declaration on Interreligious Dialogue. 2008. U.N. Human Rights Council Resolution Combating Defamation of Religions, 2009. The United Nations. Lille Declaration on a Culture of Peace. European Council of Religious Leaders – Religions for Peace. 2009. A Declaration of a Culture of Peace, 2000, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
44. Savage, Sean, jns.org, April 15, 2013, Does Coptic Christian Persecution Under Morsi Signal Egypt’s Collapse?
45. The World Post, Ahead of Elections, Iraq’s Prime Minister Al-Maliki Faces Criticism From All Sides, July 15, 2014.
46. Global Security.org, Lebanon-Religious Sects.
47. Kirkpatrick, David, The New York Times, Egypt’s Crackdown Belies Constitution as It Nears Approval, January 17, 2014.
48. In response to the possible journalistic insensitivity of the type of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon, the “Charter on Freedom of Expression and Journalistic Ethics in Relation to Respect for Religion or Belief” was issued in 2007. Section 2 calls for journalists to uphold the dignity of religious beliefs.
49. In England the Christian Muslim Forum dealt with the proselytization problem through ethical guidelines. 2009.
50. Griffiths, David, The Guardian, Religious Freedom in Nepal, April 27, 2010.
51. Mission Interministerielle de vigilance et de lute contro les derives sectaires is a French government agency which originated by Presidential decree November 2002. It strives to administrate responses to cult deviances.
52. Famguardian.org/subjects/Politics/Thomas Jefferson.
53. The Untouchables, Bureau of Prohibition under President Herbert Hoover. Eliot Ness, head of Bureau of Prohibition.
54. Shlaim, Avi, Lion of Jordan, Allen Lane, London, 2007, pps. 301-302.
55. Discover the Networks.org, “Mohammed Morsi.”
56. The World Post, Ahead of Elections, Iraq’s Prime Minister Al-Maliki Faces Criticism from all Sides, July 15, 2014.