8 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 3, 2012
state.”28 While political expediency has
somewhat diluted this injunction, in theory the
French government retains a “neutral” approach
to religion by remaining detached—not favoring
any particular religion and not favoring religion
per se.
The United States
The US Courts also interpret their First
Amendment provision to require separation of
church and state. Although the faith-based
initiatives of the Bush II administration may lead
to the observation that the doctrine is much
observed in the breach, the nonestablishment
provision has been interpreted to mean that
public monies are not supposed to be channeled
by government to religious organizations for the
promotion of religious objectives. However,
religious groups have easy access to tax-exempt
charitable status, and the Americans have
interpreted the companion free-exercise
provision to entail an avoidance of state
interference in the internal workings of religious
organizations.
There is a quid pro quo involved in the
combined concepts of separation plus free
exercise in the United States that is not so
evident in the French version of separation, or
state secularism. In the United States, much
credence is given to the biblical expression
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to
God what is God’s.” In France, Caesar
indisputably rules. I argue that in an age of
burgeoning religious pluralism, the latter
position becomes a practical imperative—not in
an anticlerical tradition, but to ensure genuine
freedom of religion for all.
China
The provision in the Chinese constitution that
relates to religion and disbelief might also be
expected to play a role in policy responses in
this field. For example, the strong policy
commitment of the Chinese government today to
excluding foreign influence from religion also
reflects the injunction contained in Article 36 of
the December 4, 1982, constitution that
“religious bodies and religious affairs are not
28 R. Murray Thomas, Religion in Schools: Controversies Around
the World, 2006, p. 31.
subject to any foreign domination.”29 The
implications of the Chinese implementation of
laws that give effect to this constitutional edict
might be lamented by Western advocates of
“religious freedom” (who might plausibly argue
for restrictions to be eased). However, the
rationale behind the provision can be
understood. Indeed, an analogy can be made
with occasional calls in Australia to impose
restrictions on foreign political donations—both
being efforts to protect the national right to self-
determination.
The Chinese are concerned that religious
organizations funded and directed from abroad
may be subversive of domestic political stability.
Their concern is something that Western
countries also have confronted. To use an
obvious historical example, one has only to note
the way in which Henry VIII and successors
nationalized the Church in England so as to
eradicate the offshore Papal threat to their
sovereignty. Once the concern had abated, an
incremental policy of toleration was
implemented—over a very long period.
In contemporary times, the way in which the
Charity Commission for England and Wales was
able to expel an imam from the East Finsbury
Mosque is an example of a discretionary level of
political control exercised over religious
authority in England.30 The tradition of the
Archbishop of Canterbury being selected by the
British Prime Minister, from a list of two
submitted by the Church of England, is an
historical remnant of this propensity.31 The
Chinese authorities exemplify the propensity in
their efforts to endorse their preferred choice of
religious authority (as in the case of the Panchen
Lama, but also apparent in the authorization of
the five official religious groupings).32
29 R. Murray Thomas, Religion in Schools: Controversies around
the World, 2006, p. 96.
30 Vikram Dodd, “Controversial Cleric Vows to Defy Mosque
Ban,” Guardian Unlimited, 18 January 2003. Retrieved online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/18/voluntarysector.terroris
m
31 Andrew Lynch, “The Constitutional Significance of the Church
of England,” in Law and Religion, edited by Peter Radan, Denise
Meyerson, and Rosalind F Croucher (NY: Routledge, 2005), pp.
180–181.
32 R. Murray Thomas, Religion in Schools: Controversies Around
the World (Westport, Connecticut London: Praeger, 2006), pp.
96–97.
state.”28 While political expediency has
somewhat diluted this injunction, in theory the
French government retains a “neutral” approach
to religion by remaining detached—not favoring
any particular religion and not favoring religion
per se.
The United States
The US Courts also interpret their First
Amendment provision to require separation of
church and state. Although the faith-based
initiatives of the Bush II administration may lead
to the observation that the doctrine is much
observed in the breach, the nonestablishment
provision has been interpreted to mean that
public monies are not supposed to be channeled
by government to religious organizations for the
promotion of religious objectives. However,
religious groups have easy access to tax-exempt
charitable status, and the Americans have
interpreted the companion free-exercise
provision to entail an avoidance of state
interference in the internal workings of religious
organizations.
There is a quid pro quo involved in the
combined concepts of separation plus free
exercise in the United States that is not so
evident in the French version of separation, or
state secularism. In the United States, much
credence is given to the biblical expression
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to
God what is God’s.” In France, Caesar
indisputably rules. I argue that in an age of
burgeoning religious pluralism, the latter
position becomes a practical imperative—not in
an anticlerical tradition, but to ensure genuine
freedom of religion for all.
China
The provision in the Chinese constitution that
relates to religion and disbelief might also be
expected to play a role in policy responses in
this field. For example, the strong policy
commitment of the Chinese government today to
excluding foreign influence from religion also
reflects the injunction contained in Article 36 of
the December 4, 1982, constitution that
“religious bodies and religious affairs are not
28 R. Murray Thomas, Religion in Schools: Controversies Around
the World, 2006, p. 31.
subject to any foreign domination.”29 The
implications of the Chinese implementation of
laws that give effect to this constitutional edict
might be lamented by Western advocates of
“religious freedom” (who might plausibly argue
for restrictions to be eased). However, the
rationale behind the provision can be
understood. Indeed, an analogy can be made
with occasional calls in Australia to impose
restrictions on foreign political donations—both
being efforts to protect the national right to self-
determination.
The Chinese are concerned that religious
organizations funded and directed from abroad
may be subversive of domestic political stability.
Their concern is something that Western
countries also have confronted. To use an
obvious historical example, one has only to note
the way in which Henry VIII and successors
nationalized the Church in England so as to
eradicate the offshore Papal threat to their
sovereignty. Once the concern had abated, an
incremental policy of toleration was
implemented—over a very long period.
In contemporary times, the way in which the
Charity Commission for England and Wales was
able to expel an imam from the East Finsbury
Mosque is an example of a discretionary level of
political control exercised over religious
authority in England.30 The tradition of the
Archbishop of Canterbury being selected by the
British Prime Minister, from a list of two
submitted by the Church of England, is an
historical remnant of this propensity.31 The
Chinese authorities exemplify the propensity in
their efforts to endorse their preferred choice of
religious authority (as in the case of the Panchen
Lama, but also apparent in the authorization of
the five official religious groupings).32
29 R. Murray Thomas, Religion in Schools: Controversies around
the World, 2006, p. 96.
30 Vikram Dodd, “Controversial Cleric Vows to Defy Mosque
Ban,” Guardian Unlimited, 18 January 2003. Retrieved online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/jan/18/voluntarysector.terroris
m
31 Andrew Lynch, “The Constitutional Significance of the Church
of England,” in Law and Religion, edited by Peter Radan, Denise
Meyerson, and Rosalind F Croucher (NY: Routledge, 2005), pp.
180–181.
32 R. Murray Thomas, Religion in Schools: Controversies Around
the World (Westport, Connecticut London: Praeger, 2006), pp.
96–97.
