Religion Wiki

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion on the one hand and the nation state on the other. The idea was the subject of much discussion over 2000 years. The term "wall of separation" was first used in an informal letter by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a committee of Baptists in Connecticut. Jefferson referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.

The concept of separation has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism.

Whitman, (2009). observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere. In the United States, by contrast, the religious component of society has retained its autonomy, appearing in charitable activities, politics, and even in the courts. Europeans therefore find the separation of church and state practically negligible in the United States.[2]

History of the concept and term

One of the first important contributors to the debate was St. Augustine, who in City of God ch 19 attempted to work out the relationship between the earthly city and the city of God. Augustine noted there were major points of overlap between the earthly city and the city of God, especially as people need to live together and get along on earth. The secular city thus does the work of enabling the heavenly city.[3]

Medieval Europe

For centuries, monarchs ruled by the idea of divine right, which said the king ruled both Crown and Church, a theory known as caesaropapism. On the other side was the belief that the Pope, as vicar of God on earth, should have the ultimate authority over the state. Moreover, throughout the Middle Ages the Pope claimed the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe and tried to exercise it, sometimes successfully (see the investiture controversy, below), sometimes not, such as was the case with Henry VIII of England and Henry III of Navarre.[4]

In the West, the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere. This unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the Church led to power struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy, that resulted in a number of important events in the development of the west.[5]


At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison, perhaps one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.[6]

In the 1530s Henry VIII, angered by the Catholic Church's refusal to annul his marriage with his wife Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the new Church of England, The Anglican Church, ending the separation that had existed between Church and State in England.[7]

United States

John Locke, English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke.[8] According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.[9]

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in Massachusetts to found what became Rhode Island on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.[10][11]


Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, supported the separation of church and state.

The Treaty of Tripoli

In 1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; ...[12]

Supporters of the separation of church and state argue that this treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. Drafted by George Washington's administration with Thomas Jefferson's help, they claim it becomes, with the Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land"—as Article VI Clause 2. of the US Constitution says it must.

Use of the phrase

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a private letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Baptists from Danbury, Connecticut. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.[13]

Another early user of the term was James Madison, the principal drafter of the United States Bill of Rights. In a 1789 debate in the House of Representatives regarding the draft of the First Amendment, the following was said:

August 15, 1789. Mr. [Peter] Sylvester [of New York] had some doubts...He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether...Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry [of Massachusetts] said it would read better if it was that "no religious doctrine shall be established by law."...Mr. [James] Madison [of Virginia] said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that "Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law."...[T]he State[s]...seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the enabled them [Congress] to make laws of such a nature as might...establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended...Mr. Madison thought if the word "National" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen...He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.[14]

Madison contended "Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body."[15] Several years later he wrote of "total separation of the church from the state."[16] "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States", Madison wrote,[17] and he declared, "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States."[18] In a letter to Edward Livingston Madison further expanded, "We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt." [19] This attitude is further reflected in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, originally authored by Jefferson and championed by Madison, and guaranteeing that no one may be compelled to finance any religion or denomination.

... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.[20]

Under the United States Constitution, the treatment of religion by the government is broken into two clauses: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. While both are discussed in the context of the separation of church and state, it is more often discussed in regard to whether certain state actions would amount to an impermissible government establishment of religion.

The phrase was also mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843.[21]

The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, though not always fully embracing the principle.[22][23][24][25][26] In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term has been used and defended heavily by the Court, but is not unanimously held. In a minority opinion in Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life.[27]

International views

Countries have varying degrees of separation between government and religious institutions. Since the 1780s a number of countries have set up explicit barriers between church and state. The degree of actual separation between government and religion or religious institutions varies widely. In some countries the two institutions remain heavily interconnected. There are new conflicts in the post-Communist world.[clarification needed][28]

The many variations on separation can be seen in some countries with high degrees of religious freedom and tolerance combined with strongly secular political cultures which have still maintained state churches or financial ties with certain religious organizations into the 21st century. In the United Kingdom, there is a constitutionally established state religion but other faiths are tolerated.[29] The British monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and 26 bishops (Lords Spiritual) sit in the upper house of government, the House of Lords.


In Norway, the King is also the leader of the state church, and the 12th article of the Constitution of Norway requires more than half of the members of the Norwegian Council of State to be members of the state church. Yet, the second article guarantees freedom of religion, while also stating that Evangelical Lutheranism is the official state religion.[30] In other kingdoms, the head of government or head of state or other high-ranking official figures may be legally required to be a member of a given faith. Powers to appoint high-ranking members of the state churches are also often still vested in the worldly governments. These powers may be slightly anachronistic or superficial, however, and disguise the true level of religious freedom the nation possesses. In the case of Andorra there are two heads of state. One is the Bishop of Seu d'Urgell, a town located in Catalunya. He has the title of Episcopalian Coprince (the other Coprince being the French Head of State). Coprinces enjoy political power in terms of law ratification and constitutional court designation, among others.

France and Turkey

Laïcité, a particular product of French history and philosophy, is was formalized in the 1905 law providing for the separation of church and state, that is, the separation of religion from political power. But, the concept of removing religion to the private space as opposed to the public space of politics and the civil sphere is currently fiercely contested in France, driven, especially, by reactions to various manifestations of Islam, such as wearing the headscarf in schools.

The French version of separation is called laïcité. This model of a secularist state protects the religious institutions from some types of state interference, but with public religious expression also to some extent limited. This aims to protect the public power from the influences of religious institutions, especially in public office. Religious views which contain no idea of public responsibility, or which consider religious opinion irrelevant to politics, are less impinged upon by this type of secularization of public discourse. Turkey, whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim, is also considered to have practiced the laïcité school of secularism since 1923. While France comes from a Roman Catholic tradition and Turkey from an Islamic one, secularism in Turkey and secularism in France present many similarities.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has criticised "negative laicite" (as in Spain) and wants to develop a "positive laicite" that recognizes the contribution of faith to French culture, history and society, allows for faith in the public discourse and for government subsidies for faith-based groups.[31] Sarkozy sees France's main religions as positive contributions to French society. He was elected on a platform proposing a modernisation of the Republic's century-old principle of laicite.[32][not in citation given] He visited the Pope in December 2007 and publicly acknowledged France's Christian roots, while highlighting the importance of freedom of thought,[33] hinting that faith should come back into the public sphere.

Nevertheless, even France and Turkey present certain entanglements (involving funding to certain religious institutions of the kind which has not been permitted in the United States). For France, such entanglements include:

  • The most striking example consists in two areas, Alsace and Moselle (see here for further detail), where the Concordate between France and the Holy See still prevails, catholic priests as well as the clergy of three other religions (Lutheran, Calvinist, and Jewish) are paid by the state, and schools have religion courses. Moreover, the catholic bishops of Metz and Strasburg are named (or rather formally appointed) by the French Head of State on proposition of the Pope, which interestingly makes the French President the only temporal power in the world to have retained the right to appoint catholic bishops, all other catholic bishops being appointed by the Pope.
  • The French President is ex officio a Coprince of Andorra, where Roman Catholicism has a status of state religion (the other Coprince being a Spanish bishop). Moreover, French Heads of States are traditionally offered an honorary title of Canon of the Papal Archbasilica of St. John Lateran, Cathedral of Rome. Once this honour has been awarded to a newly elected president, France pays for a choir vicar, a priest who occupies the seat in the canonial chapter of the Cathedral in lieu of the president<note>the case never occurred in history that the French elect a President who would not be male and Roman Catholic. Would this be the case, this honour would most probably not possibly be awarded to him</note>. The French President also holds a seat in a few other canonial chapters in France.
  • Another example of the complex ties between France and the Catholic Church consists in the Pieux Établissements de la France à Rome et à Lorette: five churches in Rome (Trinità dei Monti, St. Louis of the French, St. Ivo of the Bretons, St. Claude of the Free County of Burgundy, and St. Nicholas of the Lorrains) as well as a chapel in Loreto belong to France, and are administered and paid for by a special foundation linked to the French embassy to the Holy See.
  • In Wallis & Futuna, a French overseas territory, national education is conceded to the diocese, which gets paid for it by the State.

In Turkey, one can cite:

  • Despite Turkey being an officially secular country, the Preamble of the Constitution states that "There shall be no interference whatsoever of the sacred religious feelings in State affairs and politics."[34]
  • In order to control the way religion is perceived by adherents, the State pays imams' wages (only for Sunni Muslims), and provides religious education (of the Sunni Muslim variety) in public schools. The State has a Department of Religious Affairs, directly under the Prime Minister bureaucratically, responsible for organizing the Sunni Muslim religion - including what will and will not be mentioned in sermons given at mosques, especially on Fridays. Such an interpretation of secularism, where religion is under strict control of the State is very different from that of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and is a good example of how secularism can be applied in a variety of ways in different regions of the world.


Commentators have posited that the form of church-state separation enacted in France in 1905 and found in the Spanish Constitution of 1931 are of a "hostile" variety, noting that the hostility of the state toward the church was a cause of the breakdown of democracy and the onset of the Spanish Civil War.[35][36]


The issue of the role of the Catholic Church in Mexico has been highly divisive since the 1820s. Its large land holdings were especially a point of contention. Mexico was guided toward what was proclaimed a separation of church and state by Benito Juárez who, in 1859, attempted to eliminate the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the nation by appropriating its land and prerogatives.[37][38] In 1859 the Ley Lerdo was issued - purportedly separating church and state, but actually involving state intervention in Church matters by abolishing monastic orders, and nationalizing church property.[37][38][39] To this day all churches are owned by the Government of Mexico.


in Japan, the Shinto religion was closely associated with the state and the Emperor until 1945. Under the American military occupation (1945–50) separation of religion and state became a major priority.


In contrast to separation, and varying by degrees, are theocracy, anticlericalism, state religion or state atheism, where either the state intrudes upon religion, or vice versa.

The belief that authority derives from a God and diffuses downward through a monarch was promoted by the French philosopher Jean Bodin. His ideas were naturally welcomed by the Bourbon and Stuart monarchs who advocated the alleged "divine right of kings." The duty of the common people was simply to obey God and the king. This concept of Jean Bodin was contradicted by the founders of the American republic who saw the source of authority as being both the social contract (i.e. popular sovereignty) and natural law (i.e. rights "endowed by their Creator").


The discussion over the separation of church and state is often connected with the general divide between the concepts of secularism and theocracy. While the term "secularism" was first coined by the British writer George Holyoake in 1846[40] (more than half a century after the ratification of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and nearly as long after Jefferson's reference to the "Wall of Separation"), it has since come to denote the general concept of separating religion from other aspects of social life, and particularly from the governmental sphere. As such, outside of the United States (where Jefferson's metaphor of the "Wall of Separation" has less importance), and to some extent in the United States as well, the discussion of secularism versus theocracy has come to provide the broader rubric for discussing the relationship between religion and government.

Friendly and hostile separation

Scholars have distinguished between what are sometimes called "friendly" and "hostile" separations of church and state.[41] The friendly type limits the interference of the church in matters of the state but also limits the interference of the state in church matters.[42] The hostile variety, by contrast, seeks to confine religion purely to the home or church and limits religious education, religious rites of passage and public displays of faith.[43]

The hostile model of militant secularism arose with the French Revolution and is typified in the Mexican Revolution and the Spanish Constitution of 1931.[43][44] The hostile model exhibited during these events can be seen as approaching the type of political religion seen in totalitarian states.[43]

The French separation of 1905 and the Spanish separation of 1931 have been characterized as the two most hostile of the twentieth century, although the current schemes in those countries are considered generally friendly.[35] France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, however, still considers the current scheme a "negative laicite" and wants to develop a "positive laicite" more open to religion.[31] The hostilities of the state toward religion have been seen as a cause of civil war in Spain[45] and Mexico.

The French philosopher and a drafter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Jacques Maritain, noted the distinction between the models found in France and in the mid-twentieth century United States. He considered the U.S. model of that time to be more amicable, because it had both "sharp distinction and actual cooperation" between church and state, what he called "an historical treasure", and he admonished the United States: "Please to God that you keep it carefully, and do not let your concept of separation veer round to the European one."[46]

See also

American examples

  • First Amendment to the United States Constitution
  • Separation of church and state in the United States


  • William Bradford (1590-1657), Plymouth Colony
  • Roger Williams (theologian), Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
  • William Penn, Province of Pennsylvania (inc. Delaware Colony)


Islam and secularism debate

  • Mutaween (Religious police)
  • Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society
  • Islamic leadership
  • Progressive Muslim Union
  • Ayatollah Mohamed Hossein Kazemini Borujerdi
  • Democratic Muslims in Denmark
  • Muslim Canadian Congress


  1. Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin
  2. Whitman (2009)
  3. Feldman (2009)
  4. "Delineation of Roman Catholicism: Drawn from the authentic and acknowledged standards of the Church of Rome", by Charles Elliott, 1877 edition, page 165
  5. Berman, Harold J. (1983). Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-51774-1. OCLC 185405865. 
  6. Madison to Schaeffer, 1821
  7. Henry VIII: 1509-47 AD. Britannia History. Retrieved 2008-03-26 
  8. Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29 ("It took John Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")
  9. Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 29
  10. Hamilton, Neil A. (2002). Rebels and renegades: a chronology of social and political dissent in the United States (illustrated ed.). Taylor & Francis. p. 11. ISBN 9780415936392. .
  11. Bercovitch, Sacvan; Patell, Cyrus R. K. (1997). The Cambridge History of American Literature: 1590-1820 (illustrated ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 9780521585712. .
  12. See Wikipedia article: Treaty of Tripoli
  13. Jefferson, Thomas (1802-01-01). "Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists". U.S. Library of Congress. Retrieved 2006-11-31. 
  14. Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834, Vol. I pp. 757-759, August 15, 1789
  15. James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
  16. (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), Lambert, Frank (2003). The founding fathers and the place of religion in America. Princeton University Press. p. 288. .
  17. James Madison. "Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations—Ecclesiastical Endowments". Retrieved 2008-06-16 .
  18. (1811 letter to Baptist Churches)
  19. Madison's letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822
  20. J. F. Maclear, Church and state in the modern age: a documentary history (1995) p 65
  21. Tyler wrote, "The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent-that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgement. The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. The Mahommedan, if he will to come among us would have the privilege guaranteed to him by the constitution to worship according to the Koran; and the East Indian might erect a shrine to Brahma if it so pleased him. Such is the spirit of toleration inculcated by our political Institutions . . . . The Hebrew persecuted and down trodden in other regions takes up his abode among us with none to make him afraid . . . . and the Aegis of the Government is over him to defend and protect him. Such is the great experiment which we have cried, and such are the happy fruits which have resulted from it; our system of free government would be imperfect without it.") quoted in Nicole Guétin, Religious ideology in American politics: a history (2009) p. 85
  22. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) ("The concept of a ‘wall’ of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. . . . [b]ut the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state.")[1]
  23. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 760 (1973) ("Yet, despite Madison's admonition and the ‘sweep of the absolute prohibitions’ of the Clauses, this Nation's history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State. It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation.")[2]
  24. Patrick M. Garry, The Myth of Separation: America's Historical Experience with Church and State, 33 Hofstra L. Rev. 475, 486 (2004) (noting that "the strict separationist view was wholly rejected by every justice on the Marshall and Taney courts.")[3]
  25. Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (U.S. 1952) ("The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State.").
  26. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) ("Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense.")
  27. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)
  28. Péter Tibor Nagy. The social and political history of Hungarian education - State-Church relations in the history of educational policy of the first post-communist Hungarian government (HTML ed.). Hungarian Electronic library. ISBN 963 200 511 2. Retrieved 2007-04-27. 
  29. "Status of religious freedom by country, United Kingdom". Wikipedia. 
  30. The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway
  31. 31.0 31.1 Beita, Peter B. French President's religious mixing riles critics Christianity Today, Jan. 23, 2008
  32. Religions, République, intégration, Sarkozy s'explique, L'Express.
  33. Sarkozy breaks French taboo on church and politics
  34. "The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey". Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM). 
  35. 35.0 35.1 Stepan, Alfred, Arguing Comparative Politics, p. 221, Oxford University Press
  36. Payne, Stanley G. A History of Spain and Portugal, Vol. 2, Ch. 25, p. 632 (Print Edition: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973) (LIBRARY OF IBERIAN RESOURCES ONLINE Accessed May 30, 2007)
  37. 37.0 37.1 "Mexico, A brief History". Retrieved 2007-10-13 
  38. 38.0 38.1 Greg Clements. "Ley Lerdo". Retrieved 2007-10-13 
  39. "Ley Lerdo (Spanish text)" (in Spanish). Retrieved 2007-10-13 
  40. Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, pg. 113
  41. Maier, Hans (2004). Totalitarianism and Political Religions. trans. Jodi Bruhn. Routledge. p. 109. ISBN 0714685291. 
  42. Op. cit. Maier 2004, p. 110
  43. 43.0 43.1 43.2 Op. cit. Maier 2004, p. 111 4
  44. Martinez-Torron, Javier Freedom of religion in the case law of the Spanish Constitutional court, p. 2, Brigham Young University Law Review 2001
  45. Payne, Stanley G., A History of Spain and Portugal, Vol. 2, Ch. 25: The Second Spanish Republic , p. 632, (Print Edition: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973) (Library of Iberian Resources Online, Accessed July 11, 2009)
  46. Carson, D. A. Christ And Culture Revisited, p. 189, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2008

Further reading

  • Feldman, Noah. "Religion and the Earthly City", Social Research, Winter 2009, Vol. 76 Issue 4, pp 989–1000
  • Taylor, Charles. "The Polysemy of the Secular", Social Research, Winter 2009, Vol. 76 Issue 4, pp 1143–1166
  • Whitman, James Q. "Separating Church and State: The Atlantic Divide", Historical Reflections, Winter 2008, Vol. 34 Issue 3, pp 86–104

United States

  • Shalev, Eran, "‘A Perfect Republic’: The Mosaic Constitution in Revolutionary New England, 1775–1788," New England Quarterly, 82 (June 2009), 235–63.
  • Stone, Geoffrey R., "The World of the Framers: A Christian Nation?," UCLA Law Review, 56 (Oct. 2008), 1–26.
  • Weaver, C. Douglas. "Baptists and the First Amendment: An Historical Overview", Baptist History and Heritage, Summer 2008, Vol. 43 Issue 3, pp 8–26

External links

Some or all of this article is forked from Wikipedia. The original article was at Separation of church and state. The list of authors can be seen in the page history.