Hubbry Logo
Secular stateSecular stateMain
Open search
Secular state
Community hub
Secular state
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Secular state
Secular state
Secular state
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
  States with state secularism
  States with state religion
  Ambiguous states or no data

Freedom of religion
Concepts
Status by country
Africa
North and South America
Asia
Europe
Middle East
Oceania
Topical
Religious persecution
Religion portal

A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen based on their religious beliefs, affiliation or lack of either over those with other profiles.[2]

Although secular states have no state religion, the absence of an established state religion does not mean that a state is completely secular or egalitarian. For example, some states that describe themselves as secular have religious references in their national anthems and flags, laws that benefit one religion or another, or are members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and of the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.

Origin and practice

[edit]

Secularity can be established at a state's creation (e.g., the Soviet Union, the United States) or by it later secularizing (e.g., France or Nepal). Movements for laïcité in France and separation of church and state in the United States have defined modern concepts of secularism, the United States of America being the first explicitly secular government in history. Historically, the process of secularisation typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds being used for religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, freeing up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and allowing political leaders to come to power regardless of their religious beliefs.[3]

In France, Italy, and Spain, for example, official holidays for the public administration tend to be Christian feast days. Any private school in France that contracts with Éducation nationale means its teachers are salaried by the state—most of the Catholic schools are in this situation and, because of history, they are the majority; however, any other religious or non-religious schools also contract this way.[4] In some European states where secularism confronts monoculturalist philanthropy, some of the main Christian denominations and sects of other religions depend on the state for some of the financial resources for their religious charities.[5] It is common in corporate law and charity law to prohibit organized religion from using those funds to organize religious worship in a separate place of worship or for conversion; the religious body itself must provide the religious content, educated clergy and laypersons to exercise its own functions and may choose to devote part of their time to the separate charities. To that effect, some of those charities establish secular organizations that manage part of or all of the donations from the main religious bodies.

Many states that are nowadays secular in practice may have legal vestiges of an earlier established religion. Secularism also has various guises that may coincide with some degree of official religiosity. In the United Kingdom, the head of state is still required to take the Coronation Oath enacted in 1688, swearing to maintain the Protestant Reformed religion and to preserve the established Church of England.[6] The UK also maintains seats in the House of Lords for 26 senior clergymen of the Church of England, known as the Lords Spiritual.[7] In Canada the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affords secular freedoms of conscience and religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, including communication, assembly and association yet the Charter's preamble maintains the concept of "the supremacy of God" which would appear to disadvantage those who hold nontheistic or polytheistic beliefs, including Atheism and Buddhism.[8][9] Italy has been a secular state since the enactment of the Constitution in 1948 (stressed by a Constitutional court's decision in 1989),[10] but still recognizes a special status for the Catholic Church. The reverse progression can also occur, however; a state can go from being secular to being a religious state, as in the case of Iran where the secularized Imperial State of Iran was replaced by an Islamic Republic. Nonetheless, the last 250 years has seen a trend towards secularism.[11][12]

List of secular states by continent

[edit]
See also: Constitutional references to God

This is the list of countries that are explicitly described as secular in their constitutions or other official state documents.

Africa

[edit]

Americas

[edit]

Asia

[edit]

Europe

[edit]

Oceania

[edit]

Transcontinental countries

[edit]

Formerly secular states

[edit]

Ambiguous countries

[edit]
  • Bangladesh
    • There is constitutional ambiguity whether Bangladesh is a secular country or an Islamic country. In 2010, the high court of Bangladesh reinstated secularism as a part of the Bangladesh constitution after terming the 1977 constitutional amendment done by then Bangladesh President Ziaur Rahman as illegal.[175] Political leaders and experts have expressed uncertainty if Bangladesh is a secular state or an Islamic state.[176]Bangladesh regime changes often advocate for different type of religious freedom as in secularism or pluarism.[177]
  • Malaysia
    • In Article 3 of the Constitution of Malaysia, Sunni Islam is stated as the official religion of the country: "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation." In 1956, the Alliance party submitted a memorandum to the Reid Commission, which was responsible for drafting the Malayan constitution. The memorandum quoted: "The religion of Malaya shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practicing their own religion and shall not imply that the state is not a secular state."[178] The full text of the Memorandum was inserted into paragraph 169 of the Commission Report.[179] This suggestion was later carried forward in the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Proposals 1957 (White Paper), specifically quoted in paragraph 57: "There has been included in the proposed Federal Constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular State...."[180] The Cobbold Commission also made another similar quote in 1962: "....we are agreed that Islam should be the national religion for the Federation. We are satisfied that the proposal in no way jeopardises freedom of religion in the Federation, which in effect would be secular."[181] In December 1987, the Lord President of the Supreme Court, Salleh Abas described Malaysia as governed by "secular law" in a court ruling.[182]
  • Syria
    • The 2025 Interim Constitution of Syria carries much of the same context of religion as prior constitutions, albeit with a slight wording change regarding the influence of Islamic jurisprudence on legislation. The new constitution however does not explicitly designate a State Religion in the same way as various other Middle Eastern countries do. Article 3 states "The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam; Islamic jurisprudence is the principal source of legislation.[183]

See also

[edit]
Look up secular in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Secular state

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

A secular state is a form of government that operates independently of any religious doctrine, maintaining neutrality by neither establishing an official religion nor privileging one faith over others, while separating ecclesiastical institutions from state functions to ensure equal treatment of believers and non-believers alike. This framework, rooted in Enlightenment-era critiques of theocratic authority and refined through historical struggles against religious monopolies on power, prioritizes individual autonomy in matters of conscience and limits state interference in private beliefs or practices. Key principles include the prohibition of religious tests for public office, equitable application of laws irrespective of creed, and the regulation of religious activities only to the extent necessary for public order, thereby fostering social cohesion amid religious diversity without suppressing faith. Pioneered in models like the United States' First Amendment and France's laïcité, secular states have achieved greater religious tolerance and civic equality compared to confessional regimes, though controversies persist over the extent of permissible religious expression in public spheres and the risk of state-imposed irreligion masquerading as neutrality.

Definition and Principles

Core Definition and Distinctions

A is a form of in which state institutions operate independently of religious , maintaining official neutrality toward all religions and worldviews without endorsing, establishing, or suppressing any. This separation ensures that laws, policies, and derive from secular rationales—grounded in , contractual agreements, and universal —rather than divine or clerical oversight. The core aim is to foster equal , where individuals' and duties stem from their status as citizens, not adherents to a particular faith, thereby preventing religious majorities from imposing doctrines on minorities or nonbelievers. Key distinctions arise in how secular states handle religious influence compared to alternatives. In contrast to confessional or theocratic states—such as Iran's Islamic Republic, where Sharia law constitutes the basis for governance—a secular state rejects religious texts as sources of positive law and bars religious leaders from holding formal state power. Religious states may designate an official faith (e.g., the United Kingdom's Church of England until partial disestablishment efforts in the 20th century) or integrate religious criteria into citizenship and policy, whereas secular neutrality prohibits such privileging to avoid coercion and ensure impartiality in public goods distribution. Secular states further differ from irreligious or atheist regimes, like the under Leninist policies from 1917 to 1991, which actively promoted and persecuted religious practice as ideological threats, rather than permitting private belief and expression under equal protection. Within itself, models vary: American-style emphasizes protecting religious freedom from state interference via strict non-endorsement (e.g., the First Amendment's , ratified 1791), while French laïcité, codified in the 1905 Law on , asserts state sovereignty over public spaces to shield governance from religious symbols or pressures, prioritizing freedom from religion in official domains. These distinctions underscore that is not inherently anti-religious but structurally prioritizes governance by consent over faith-based legitimacy.

Philosophical Underpinnings

The philosophical underpinnings of the secular state derive primarily from liberal theories emphasizing individual autonomy, rational governance, and the distinct spheres of civil and spiritual authority. articulated a foundational argument in his (1689), asserting that the state's role is confined to securing civil interests such as life, liberty, and property, while the church addresses eternal salvation through persuasion rather than coercion. reasoned that enforced uniformity in belief produces insincerity and societal discord, as true faith cannot be compelled, drawing from the empirical lesson of Europe's religious wars, including the (1618–1648), which killed millions over doctrinal disputes. This separation prevents the state from becoming an instrument of , preserving peace by limiting government to observable, consensual ends rather than unverifiable revelations. Enlightenment philosophers extended Locke's framework by prioritizing empirical reason and skepticism toward institutional religion's political claims. Thinkers like and critiqued the fusion of ecclesiastical and monarchical power as a source of absolutism, advocating governance based on accessible through human intellect independent of scripture. , in The Spirit of the Laws (1748), argued for institutional checks, including ecclesiastical independence, to avert tyranny, observing that clerical influence historically amplified arbitrary rule in and elsewhere. These arguments rest on epistemological grounds: must rely on intersubjectively verifiable principles to avoid the conflicts inherent in competing divine mandates, which lack empirical resolution and foster intolerance. At its core, secular state philosophy invokes contractualist reasoning, where political legitimacy stems from mutual agreement among free individuals rather than divine right or communal faith. This entails state neutrality toward comprehensive doctrines, enabling pluralism without privileging any worldview, as non-neutrality empirically correlates with suppressed dissent, as seen in pre-Reformation Europe's inquisitions and executions for heresy. Critics from religious perspectives contend this elevates secular humanism to a quasi-religion, yet proponents counter that neutrality facilitates voluntary association and innovation, evidenced by lower religious violence rates in secular polities post-1650 compared to confessional states. Such foundations prioritize causal mechanisms—state coercion of belief undermines legitimacy—over normative appeals to tradition, ensuring governance serves observable human flourishing. The legal principles underpinning secular states emphasize the institutional separation of religious and governmental spheres to prevent the subordination of state authority to religious doctrine or vice versa, while upholding individual liberty of conscience and equal treatment under law. Central to this is the doctrine of state neutrality, which requires governments to refrain from endorsing, funding, or coercing adherence to any religion, grounded in the recognition that political legitimacy derives from rational, public reasoning rather than theological claims. This framework emerged from Enlightenment critiques of theocratic entanglement, prioritizing empirical governance over faith-based mandates. In the United States, these principles are codified in the First Amendment to the , ratified on December 15, 1791, which declares that " shall make no law respecting an establishment of , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Establishment Clause bars federal actions that favor one or generally, as interpreted through judicial standards assessing secular purpose, primary effects, and avoidance of excessive entanglement with religious entities. The protects personal religious practice from undue government burden, balanced against compelling state interests, with these protections incorporated against states via the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The has upheld this through cases enforcing for burdens on religious exercise, ensuring judicial oversight maintains the wall of separation without permitting religious veto over civil laws. France exemplifies assertive secularism through the Law of December 9, 1905, on the Separation of the Churches from the State, which declared the Republic's neutrality by ceasing recognition, salary, or subsidy for cults, while guaranteeing freedom of subject to public order. This institutionalized laïcité by privatizing religious associations, requiring them to self-fund and register as civil entities, and banning religious symbols in public functions to preserve state impartiality. Public , mandatory since 1882 and reinforced post-1905, excludes denominational instruction, fostering civic unity through shared rational curricula. Institutionally, secular states deploy independent judiciaries to enforce these principles via , striking down laws that entangle state power with religious orthodoxy—for instance, invalidating mandatory school prayers or preferential exemptions for specific faiths. Legislative mechanisms include uniform civil codes superseding religious personal laws in domains like and , as seen in Turkey's 1926 adoption of Swiss-inspired codes under its 1924 Constitution declaring a secular . Public administration mandates secular oaths for officials, prohibiting religious tests for office, and bars state resources from proselytizing or ritual observance. These structures, while varying in rigidity, aim to mitigate factional religious influence on policy, with courts serving as arbiters to resolve conflicts through evidence-based rather than doctrinal authority.

Historical Development

Ancient and Pre-Modern Precursors

In ancient Persia, (r. 559–530 BCE) implemented policies following the conquest of in 539 BCE that allowed conquered peoples to restore their temples and practice their religions without coercion, as inscribed on the , which repatriated exiles including to and promoted ethnic and religious diversity under imperial rule. This approach contrasted with the religious impositions of prior Babylonian rulers and emphasized pragmatic governance over theological uniformity, though it served expansionist aims rather than ideological neutrality. Historians interpret the cylinder as an early administrative decree fostering stability through non-interference in local cults, prefiguring later tolerance models without establishing state . In the Mauryan Empire of , Emperor (r. c. 268–232 BCE) promulgated edicts after the (c. 261 BCE) that advocated dhamma, a moral code emphasizing non-violence, ethical conduct, and respect for all religious sects regardless of the ruler's personal adherence to . Major Rock Edict 7 explicitly urged reverence for others' doctrines without denigrating one's own, while prohibiting harm to ascetics or lay followers of diverse pāṣaṇḍas (sects), and Edict 12 warned that excessive devotion leading to condemnation of rival faiths harms all parties. These inscriptions, carved on pillars and rocks across the empire from c. 260 BCE onward, aimed at unifying a multi-ethnic realm through pluralistic ethics rather than enforced , though dhamma retained Buddhist undertones and supported state welfare initiatives like animal protection and medical facilities for all. Scholars note this as an instance of ancient pluralism, where imperial authority transcended singular religious dominance to prioritize social harmony, yet it fell short of modern secular neutrality by integrating moral governance with the emperor's spiritual patronage. Pre-modern precursors appeared in the under (r. 1556–1605 CE), whose sulh-i-kul (universal peace) doctrine from the 1570s onward mandated tolerance across Hindu, Muslim, Jain, Christian, and Zoroastrian communities, abolishing the jizya tax on non-Muslims in 1564 and convening interfaith assemblies at to debate without privileging . This policy, formalized in farmans (imperial decrees) and reflected in the syncretic (c. 1582), positioned the emperor as a spiritual arbiter above sectarian divides, enabling administrative appointments based on merit irrespective of faith and reducing religious strife in a diverse subcontinent. While rooted in Timurid and Sufi influences and serving to consolidate power amid Hindu-majority rule, sulh-i-kul represented a deliberate shift from theocratic precedents, fostering coexistence through state impartiality in personal beliefs, though the empire retained Islamic symbolic elements like the call to prayer. Primary accounts, such as those by court chronicler in the Ain-i Akbari (c. 1590s), document these measures as pragmatic responses to rebellion risks, underscoring causal links between enforced pluralism and imperial longevity.

Enlightenment Origins

The concept of the secular state emerged prominently during the Enlightenment through critiques of ecclesiastical authority and advocacy for religious toleration grounded in reason rather than divine . Thinkers argued that intertwining church and state fostered intolerance, civil discord, and hindered rational governance, proposing instead that should focus on earthly welfare while leaving spiritual matters to individual conscience. This shift prioritized empirical observation and natural rights over theological dogma, viewing state neutrality toward religion as essential for social harmony and intellectual progress. John Locke's (1689) laid foundational arguments by distinguishing the church's spiritual aims from the state's civil jurisdiction, asserting that coercion in undermines genuine and that magisterial power extends only to outward conduct affecting public order. Locke contended that toleration prevents the divisions seen in religiously contested realms, where princes' endorsements of sects exacerbate conflicts akin to secular disputes, though he excluded atheists (deemed unreliable in oaths) and initially Catholics (due to papal allegiance potentially overriding civil loyalty). His ideas influenced later secular frameworks by emphasizing in religion and state restraint from doctrinal enforcement. Voltaire advanced these principles by lambasting the Catholic Church's temporal power and advocating , drawing from England's post-1688 toleration model in his (1733), where he praised Protestant sects' coexistence under minimal state interference as superior to French absolutism fused with clerical influence. He argued for shielding reason and universal values from religious fanaticism, influencing demands for state disengagement from dogma, though Voltaire retained deistic beliefs and did not envision a fully atheistic but one where served without political dominance. Enlightenment ideas shaped American institutional secularism, as , steeped in Lockean rationalism, drafted the in 1777 (enacted 1786), prohibiting state compulsion in belief and declaring civil rights independent of religious opinions to avert priestly tyranny over governance. reinforced this in his 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, warning that established religion corrupts both faith and liberty, leading to the First Amendment's non-establishment clause (ratified 1791), which barred federal endorsement of any sect and reflected Enlightenment causal logic that state-religion alliances historically bred rather than piety. In , Enlightenment critiques culminated in revolutionary actions from , where the National Assembly's abolition of feudal privileges extended to clerical ones, nationalizing church property and enacting the () to subordinate bishops to elected bodies, marking an assertive secular reconfiguration of state-religion ties amid backlash against perceived monarchical-theocratic collusion. This radical pivot, fueled by thinkers like Rousseau's prioritizing over ecclesiastical mediation, prefigured laïcité but initially provoked violent dechristianization campaigns, illustrating how Enlightenment reason could yield both principled neutrality and coercive when confronting entrenched power.

Modern Expansion and Variations

The modern expansion of secular states accelerated in the 19th century following the Enlightenment, with France's Third Republic enacting key laws from 1881 to that established laïcité by removing religious influence from public education, authorizing divorce, and separating church and state via the 1905 Law on the Separation of the Churches and the State. This model influenced other European nations, such as Italy's 1948 constitution, which declared the state neither Catholic nor atheistic while affirming religious freedom. In the , Mexico's 1917 constitution formalized strict by nationalizing church property and prohibiting clerical involvement in politics, a response to the power of the during the era. Secularism spread globally through after , with over 50 newly independent African nations adopting that declared or neutrality toward between 1957 and 1966; for instance, Ghana's 1960 prohibited state establishment of , reflecting a deliberate break from colonial religious ties. In , India's 1950 enshrined via amendments in 1976, balancing amid Hindu-majority demographics, while Turkey's 1928 constitutional reform under replaced as with explicit principles. These expansions often stemmed from nationalist movements seeking to unify diverse populations under civic rather than religious identities, though implementation varied by local power dynamics. Variations emerged in assertive versus passive approaches: assertive secularism, as in Turkey's 1982 constitution banning religious attire in public institutions to enforce Kemalist ideology, contrasted with passive models like the , where the First Amendment's prevented federal religious favoritism without mandating removal of private religious symbols. In the , from 1917 to 1991, state atheism aggressively suppressed religion through decrees like the 1929 Law on Religious Associations, closing thousands of churches and promoting scientific , affecting over 80% of the population by mid-century. Such differences highlight causal factors like revolutionary ideologies versus liberal traditions, with assertive variants risking authoritarian enforcement, as evidenced by Turkey's 1997 postmodern coup upholding secular bans. Post-1945 international norms, including the 1948 ' Article 18 on religious freedom without state coercion, facilitated secular constitutionalism in after 1989, where nations like amended laws to reduce [Catholic Church](/page/Catholic Church) privileges accumulated under . However, expansions faced reversals; for example, Bangladesh's 2010 secular restoration reversed 1977 Islamization, yet enforcement remained inconsistent due to Islamist political pressures. Empirical data from the Varieties of Secularism Project indicates that by 2020, approximately 96 countries explicitly declared in constitutions, up from fewer than 20 in 1900, driven by modernization and ethnic diversity rather than uniform ideological commitment. This proliferation underscores secularism's adaptability, though source analyses, such as those critiquing Western academic overemphasis on European models, reveal biases in underreporting non-Western assertive variants' stability challenges. In the decade from 2010 to 2020, religious affiliation declined by at least 5 percentage points in 35 countries, reflecting a broader empirical pattern of that supports the neutrality of secular states by reducing societal pressures for religious favoritism. This shift follows a predictable sequence across generations: first, declining participation in public religious rituals such as worship services; second, reduced personal importance ascribed to ; and third, lower rates of formal religious identification, as evidenced in cross-national data from high-development-index nations where younger cohorts disaffiliate at higher rates. Globally, the unaffiliated reached 24.2% by 2020, with notable drops in Christian identification in (a 19.7% net loss due to secularization) and stabilization or slower declines in , where U.S. Christian affiliation fell to 62% by 2023-2024 but showed signs of leveling off after two decades of steeper drops. Countervailing pressures have emerged through the rise of in several nominally secular states, where movements blend ethnic or with religious symbolism to challenge institutional separation of religion and governance. In , a constitutionally secular republic, policies since 2014 under the have emphasized Hindu cultural primacy, including the 2019 revocation of and Kashmir's special status and laws perceived as favoring non-Muslim immigrants, prompting debates over erosion of equidistance between religions. Similarly, in , once a model of assertive under , constitutional amendments since 2017 have expanded executive powers amid policies aligning state institutions more closely with Sunni Islamic norms, reducing the military's role as secular guardian. In , Hungary's government since 2010 has promoted "" through laws restricting NGO funding and media, framing national sovereignty against secular-liberal influences from the , though remains low compared to global averages. In , where over 20 countries maintain secular constitutions, expanded numerically by high birth rates and conversions, surpassing Europe's Christian population by 2020, yet state policies in nations like and have grappled with , leading to reinforced secular mechanisms such as laws or interfaith councils to maintain neutrality amid high (over 90% affiliated). In contrast, has seen policy reinforcements of , exemplified by France's 2021 "anti-separatism" law targeting Islamist while upholding laïcité, and similar bans on religious symbols in public spaces in countries like and since the mid-2010s, driven by immigration-related security concerns rather than declining native . These trends indicate that while empirical declines in religious practice facilitate secular governance in developed regions, political mobilizations exploiting identity in emerging economies test the resilience of secular frameworks, often without altering formal constitutional commitments.

Models and Typologies

Passive and Assertive Secularism

Passive secularism refers to a model in which the state maintains neutrality toward religions by permitting their public visibility and expression, provided they do not interfere with individual rights or state functions, thereby allowing religious symbols, practices, and discourse in public spaces such as schools and government buildings. This approach emerged prominently in contexts lacking a dominant religious during , fostering an ideological consensus among secular and religious groups that supports without state-imposed privatization of faith. , for instance, passive secularism has dominated since the founding, as evidenced by the First Amendment's , which prohibits state favoritism but accommodates public religious activities, such as voluntary in legislatures or religious attire in schools, reflecting early religious diversity without a unified clerical opposition to secular . similarly adopts this model, constitutionally recognizing religious personal laws and allowing practices like in public institutions, rooted in its post-independence accommodation of Hindu, Muslim, and other communities to avoid sectarian conflict. In contrast, assertive secularism entails the state actively excluding religion from the to prevent its influence on or , often through bans on religious symbols and direct intervention in religious affairs, positioning as a comprehensive that privatizes faith. This variant typically arises from historical struggles against a powerful religious , where secular elites view religion as a threat to modernization and national unity, leading to policies that subordinate or control religious institutions. exemplifies assertive secularism through its laïcité principle, formalized in the 1905 law separating church and state, which culminated in the 2004 ban on conspicuous religious symbols in public schools to preserve a neutral republican space, a response to the Catholic Church's historical alliance with . under implemented assertive measures post-1923, including the 1924 , closure of religious courts, and bans on religious attire in public offices until partial lifts in the , as the state established the Directorate of Religious Affairs to regulate and counter Ottoman theocratic legacies. Mexico's 1917 constitution similarly enforces assertive secularism by nationalizing church property and prohibiting clerical political activity, stemming from revolutionary conflicts with the Catholic Church's influence. The distinction influences policy outcomes: passive models correlate with greater religious freedom and lower state-religion tensions in pluralistic societies, as seen in U.S. rulings like Employment Division v. Smith (1990) upholding neutral laws over religious exemptions, yet permitting public faith expressions. Assertive approaches, however, can provoke backlash from religious minorities, as in 's 2010 burqa ban or 's pre-2010 university prohibitions, where state enforcement prioritizes secular uniformity over accommodation, potentially alienating devout groups without of religion undermining public order. Scholars like Ahmet T. Kuru argue that assertive secularism's dominance reflects elite ideological victories over religious forces during critical periods, rather than inherent secular superiority, with passive variants better suiting religiously diverse democracies by avoiding coercive privatization. Empirical comparisons show assertive states like and exhibit stricter controls on and funding compared to passive ones like the U.S. and , where state neutrality permits faith-based initiatives alongside secular options.

Accommodationist vs. Strict Separation Models

The strict separation model of secularism mandates a rigid institutional divide between the state and religious organizations, prohibiting government funding, endorsement, or facilitation of religious practices to avert any perception of establishment or coercion. This approach, often termed separationism, draws from Thomas Jefferson's 1802 metaphor of a "wall of separation" between church and state, emphasizing non-entanglement to safeguard individual conscience and prevent sectarian favoritism. In practice, it bars public resources from supporting religious institutions, such as prohibiting state aid to parochial schools or religious displays on government property, as seen in early U.S. Supreme Court rulings like (1947), which incorporated the Establishment Clause against states while initially upholding a no-aid principle. exemplifies this model through its laïcité principle, enshrined in the 1905 law separating church and state, which forbids public funding of religious activities and, via the 2004 law, bans conspicuous religious symbols in public schools to enforce neutrality. Conversely, the accommodationist model permits selective state support for religious practices or institutions when it alleviates burdens on believers without establishing religion or discriminating among faiths, viewing such measures as compatible with neutrality by acknowledging religion's societal role. Proponents argue this avoids the hostility toward religion that strict separation can foster, as rigid bans may disadvantage religious citizens in public life. In the U.S., this has gained prominence since the , with cases like Mueller v. Allen (1983) allowing tax deductions for religious school expenses and (2022) mandating inclusion of religious schools in programs if secular ones qualify, rejecting exclusion as discriminatory. European examples include Germany's system, where the state collects a (Kirchensteuer) on behalf of recognized denominations—yielding €12.5 billion in 2022—and integrates confessional into public schools, funded proportionally to taxpayer affiliation, under Article 140 of the . Key distinctions lie in their treatment of entanglement and aid: strict separation prioritizes prophylactic avoidance of any state-religion overlap to minimize risks, potentially at the cost of marginalizing religious expression in public spheres, whereas accommodationism employs a effects-based test, permitting aid if it neutrally benefits religious and secular entities alike, as in (2002), which upheld Cleveland's voucher program serving 96% religious schools without violating neutrality. Critics of strict separation contend it deviates from the Framers' intent, interpreting the Establishment Clause as barring rather than all aid, evidenced by historical practices like congressional chaplains since 1789. Accommodationism, however, faces charges of eroding neutrality by enabling subtle preferences, as when state-collected funds sustain religious hierarchies. Empirical outcomes vary: strict models correlate with lower public religiosity in surveys, such as France's 47% non-religious population in 2021 data, while accommodationist systems like Germany's maintain higher church membership (around 50% in 2023) without formal establishment dominance. These models reflect causal tensions between preventing by religion and avoiding anti-religious bias, with judicial shifts—U.S. Court from separationist peak in 1985 (Wallace v. Jaffree) to accommodationist majority post-1990—influenced by pluralistic demographics and free exercise claims.

Mechanisms of Implementation

Constitutional and Legislative Frameworks

The constitutional frameworks of secular states typically enshrine principles of non-establishment, religious neutrality, and freedom of conscience to prevent governmental endorsement or coercion regarding religion. These provisions often prohibit the declaration of an official state religion, bar religious tests for public office, and mandate equal treatment across beliefs, reflecting a commitment to state autonomy from ecclesiastical authority. For example, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution explicitly states that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States," ensuring eligibility for government roles irrespective of faith. Similarly, the First Amendment's Establishment Clause declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," which courts have interpreted to forbid federal sponsorship of religious activities or favoritism toward any sect, with incorporation to states via the Fourteenth Amendment. In assertive models like 's laïcité, the 1958 Constitution's Article 1 affirms that " shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social ," codifying state supremacy over religious matters and prohibiting public funding or symbols that could imply endorsement. This builds on the 1905 Law on the Separation of the Churches and the State, which dissolved the Napoleonic , nationalized church property, and restricted religious associations to non-political activities under state oversight. Legislative extensions include the 2004 law banning conspicuous religious symbols in public schools and the 2010 extension to face coverings in public spaces, aimed at preserving neutral public spheres. Turkey's 1982 Constitution exemplifies Kemalist secularism in Article 2, defining the Republic as a "democratic, secular and social state governed by rule of law," with Article 24 guaranteeing freedom of religion while subordinating it to state control via the Directorate of Religious Affairs, which administers mosques and imams as civil servants. In contrast, India's framework adopts an accommodationist approach: the Preamble, amended by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, declares the state "secular," while Articles 25–28 protect freedom of conscience and practice, permit state regulation of religious institutions for social welfare (e.g., temple entry reforms), and prohibit taxes for specific religions but allow aid to educational institutions regardless of affiliation. Globally, approximately 41% of constitutions explicitly establish or separation, often paired with anti-discrimination clauses under equality provisions. Legislative implementations vary: passive systems like the U.S. permit indirect accommodations (e.g., exemptions for religious nonprofits), while assertive ones enforce bans on religious oaths or proselytizing in official contexts; however, enforcement depends on , as seen in U.S. rulings against (, 1962) or French validations of burqa bans. These frameworks prioritize empirical neutrality to mitigate sectarian conflicts, though deviations occur where historical ties persist, such as subsidized in some European secular states.

Judicial Roles and Enforcement

In secular states, judiciaries enforce secular principles primarily through constitutional review, invalidating laws, policies, or state actions that establish religion, coerce belief, or undermine neutrality between faiths. This role stems from provisions mandating separation or equidistance, with courts balancing religious exercise against state impartiality via tests like purpose-effect analysis or historical precedent. Enforcement varies by model: strict separation in the U.S. prohibits endorsement, while assertive secularism in France demands public neutrality. The U.S. exemplifies enforcement under the First Amendment's , incorporated to states in Everson v. Board of Education (1947), which barred public funding for religious schooling while permitting neutral accommodations like bus transport. In (1971), it established a tripartite test—secular purpose, primary effect neither advancing nor inhibiting , and no excessive entanglement—to strike down state aid to religious schools, applied in over 30 cases until overruled. More recently, (2022) rejected Lemon, adopting a "history and tradition" standard to uphold a coach's public , emphasizing avoidance over strict non-endorsement, amid critiques of eroding barriers in funding disputes like (2022). France's Conseil d'État, as administrative apex court, rigorously applies laïcité under Article 1 of the 1958 Constitution, requiring state neutrality and public service impartiality. It upheld the 2004 law banning conspicuous religious symbols (e.g., hijabs, large crosses) in schools to prevent proselytism, deeming them incompatible with secular education. In 2016, it permitted nativity scenes in public buildings if contextualized as cultural or festive, not devotional, rejecting blanket prohibitions. On September 27, 2024, it affirmed the Education Minister's abaya ban in state schools, classifying it as non-religious attire undermining uniform neutrality, prioritizing educational cohesion over individual expression. India's treats as a " since v. State of (1973), immunizing it from amendment, and upheld its insertion (42nd Amendment, 1976) on November 25, 2024, rejecting claims it altered the original Constitution's intent. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), it invoked to scrutinize under Article 356, quashing dismissals of state governments for failing religious neutrality, as in the BJP-led governments ousted post-Babri Masjid demolition (1992). Enforcement includes barring state-funded religious events, as in Arun Singh v. State of Bihar (2006), prohibiting official participation to avoid endorsement. Turkey's historically enforced laiklik—active state under Article 2 (amended 1937)—by annulling pro-religious laws, such as the 1989 invalidation of Alevi exemptions from mandatory Sunni-oriented , deeming it violative of uniformity. It dissolved the (1998) for anti-secular activities, upholding headscarf bans in universities until 2010 lifts amid pressures, reflecting tensions between Kemalist rigidity and democratic pluralism. Recent rulings, post-2010 constitutional , have permitted more religious expression in public spaces, signaling a shift from assertive to accommodative enforcement.

State-Religion Interactions in Practice

In secular states, interactions between the state and religion manifest through policies on public education, where France's 2004 law prohibiting conspicuous religious symbols in schools, such as the , aims to enforce laïcité by maintaining neutrality in state institutions, though enforcement has disproportionately targeted Muslim students, leading to over 1,000 expulsions by 2010 and ongoing bans in public schools upheld in 2023. In contrast, the in Carson v. Makin (2022) ruled that states cannot exclude religious schools from tuition reimbursement programs available to private secular schools, effectively allowing public funds to support religious education under the , reversing prior precedents like Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). India's approach accommodates religious personal laws, permitting Muslims to follow Sharia-based rules for , , and under the (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, while Hindu personal laws were reformed via the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, reflecting a model of equal respect rather than uniform secular law. State and oversight of religious institutions vary widely; , despite its constitutional secularism, has seen the Directorate of Religious Affairs (Diyanet) budget expand from 4.6 billion in 2010 to over 10 billion by 2020 under President Erdogan, funding thousands of mosques and imam-hatip schools that enroll over 1.4 million students as of 2023, integrating into the public system. In the U.S., federal military chaplains, numbering about 3,000 across branches as of 2023, provide religious services to service members under the Establishment Clause, justified as accommodating free exercise in a captive audience, per Katcoff v. (1985). France's Interministerial Mission for Monitoring and Combating Cultic Deviances (MIVILUDES), established in 2002, monitors groups deemed sectarian, including some religious minorities, resulting in convictions for overreach in five cases by 2025, highlighting tensions between state vigilance and religious freedom. Public symbols and holidays illustrate pragmatic accommodations; many secular states recognize religious holidays as national days off, such as Christmas in the U.S., where federal law mandates time off for federal employees since 1870, despite no official religion, to respect majority practices without endorsement. In France, the 2010 burkini bans on beaches in over 30 municipalities were struck down by the Conseil d'État for lacking proportionality, yet similar restrictions persist in schools, enforcing visibility of secular norms over private belief. Turkey lifted the headscarf ban in universities and public offices in 2013, allowing over 5 million women to participate more fully in public life, but critics argue this shifts toward assertive religious integration, with religious rhetoric in state ceremonies increasing post-2016 coup attempt. Judicial enforcement often balances separation with pluralism; the U.S. in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) permitted a coach's prayer on the field after games, prioritizing free exercise over perceived establishment, marking a departure from prior tests. In , courts uphold personal laws but intervene in cases of violations, as in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), invalidating instant triple talaq for Muslim women under Article 14 equality, yet preserving broader application. These practices reveal that strict theoretical separation frequently yields to empirical needs, such as social cohesion or minority accommodation, though selective enforcement—evident in France's focus on Islamic practices amid declining Christian influence—raises questions of neutrality.

Global Examples and Regional Variations

Europe

Europe encompasses a diverse array of secular state models, reflecting historical entanglements between and governance, Enlightenment influences, and post-World War II reconstructions. While most constitutions affirm the , practical implementations range from strict exclusion of from spheres to cooperative partnerships where states fund religious institutions or maintain established churches. This variation stems from path-dependent factors, including Protestant state churches in and Catholic concordats in , rather than uniform application of abstract principles. support for separation remains high—over 70% in favor it, even in nations with church taxes—yet cultural persists, with states often privileging majority faiths over emerging minorities like . France exemplifies assertive secularism, or , codified in the 1905 Law on the Separation of Churches and the State, which ended Napoleonic-era concordats, nationalized church property, and barred state funding for worship. Public education enforces neutrality, prohibiting conspicuous religious symbols since a 2004 law banning items like hijabs in schools, extended by a 2010 nationwide ban in public spaces to preserve a shared civic space. This model prioritizes republican unity over , viewing state neutrality as requiring active restriction of visible faith expressions; enforcement by the Observatoire de la Laïcité and courts has upheld over 90% of related challenges, though critics argue it disproportionately targets amid rising . In contrast, Germany's "cooperative secularism" integrates recognized churches as public corporations under the Basic Law (Article 140), allowing states to levy a Kirchensteuer—8-9% of income tax from members—collected via tax authorities and disbursed to Catholic, Protestant, and select other bodies, generating €12 billion annually as of 2022. States also fund confessional religious education in public schools, comprising 10-20% of curricula in many Länder, while exempting church activities from corporate taxes. This arrangement, rooted in Weimar-era compromises to stabilize post-secularization finances, supports religious pluralism but has prompted exits—over 500,000 annually in recent years—due to fiscal burdens amid declining affiliation (now below 50%). Austria and Switzerland employ similar taxes, underscoring a Central European pattern where states subsidize religion to foster social cohesion, with empirical data showing higher voluntary giving in tax-linked systems than pure voluntarism elsewhere. The maintains the as established in per the 1534 Act of Supremacy and subsequent acts, with the monarch as Supreme Governor appointing bishops on prime ministerial advice and 26 holding reserved seats in the until reforms diluted influence post-2020. No religious tests apply to since 1829, and laws like the 2010 Equality Act enforce secular non-discrimination, rendering the establishment largely ceremonial; Scotland's Church operates as a national but independent body without state control since 1921, while has none. This "easygoing" model accommodates religion without strict barriers, funding Anglican cathedrals via heritage grants but relying on private endowments for operations, with under 2% of population yet retaining symbolic roles in state events like coronations. Nordic countries illustrate transitions: disestablished the Lutheran Church in 2000, ending state funding mandates and parliamentary seats for bishops, though it retains privileges like civil registrar status; followed in 2012, amending its to separate church governance while preserving cultural ties. and uphold Lutheran establishments, with state appropriations covering 70-80% of budgets, reflecting pragmatic welfare-state integration over ideological purity. shows hybridity—Italy's 1984 revision ended Catholicism's status but grants fiscal privileges and teaches in schools opt-in; Greece's designates as prevailing faith, with clergy as civil servants until partial reforms in 2019 reduced state salaries. , shaped by communist atheism's collapse, often features secular constitutions (e.g., Poland's 1997 invoking God but affirming no ) yet strong clerical influence, as in Hungary's 2011 law favoring Christian groups in funding. EU frameworks under Article 17 of the on the Functioning promote dialogue without harmonizing, allowing member states autonomy amid rising secular identification (51% non-religious in per 2018 surveys).

Americas

The exemplifies a model of constitutional separation of church and state, rooted in the First Amendment to the , ratified on December 15, 1791, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This framework emerged from colonial experiences with established churches in states like and , where disestablishment occurred gradually, with Virginia's 1786 Statute for Religious Freedom—drafted by —serving as a precursor by prohibiting state funding or coercion in religion. Jefferson later articulated this principle in his January 1, 1802, letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, describing a "wall of separation between Church & State" to prevent government interference in religious practice while barring official endorsement. interpretations, such as (1947), extended this to states via the Fourteenth Amendment, though debates persist over accommodations like tax exemptions for religious institutions, reflecting a non-hostile neutrality rather than assertive . Canada's secular framework is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enacted in 1982 as part of the Constitution Act, guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion under Section 2 while prohibiting discrimination based on religion in Section 15. This replaced earlier British North America Act provisions allowing denominational schools in provinces like and , leading to ongoing tensions, as seen in the 2015 ruling in Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay, which struck down a municipal practice for violating state neutrality. Despite , public funding of Catholic schools in some provinces—such as 's system, supported by taxes since 1867—illustrates accommodationist elements, with enrollment data showing over 600,000 students in 2023. In , often arose from 19th-century liberal reforms challenging Spanish colonial Catholicism, with Mexico's 1857 declaring no official religion and the 1917 version imposing strict laïcité, including Article 3's mandate for non-religious public education and Article 130's restrictions on political rights and church property ownership. These measures, enforced amid the (1926–1929) that killed an estimated 90,000, aimed to curb clerical influence but faced resistance until partial relaxations in 1992 allowed limited church activities. stands as the region's most secular nation, with its 1918 Law of ending state support for religion and mandating and education; Pew Research data from 2014 indicates 37% of Uruguayans view religion as unimportant, the highest in . Brazil's 1891 , post-monarchy, explicitly separated church and state, prohibiting federal religious funding while allowing private practice; the 1988 reinforces this with Article 19's ban on state ties to cults. Other South American states exhibit varying degrees of amid persistent Catholic majorities: Argentina's 1853 designates Catholicism as the but guarantees freedom of worship, with 2020 census data showing 62% Catholic adherence yet declining church influence. Chile's 1925 separated church and state, subsidizing non-Catholic churches since 1990, though a 2022 update notes only 45% consider religion very important. Central American constitutions, such as Costa Rica's 1949 charter banning while funding Catholic until reforms, reflect hybrid models where secular laws coexist with cultural religiosity, evidenced by evangelical growth outpacing Catholicism in nations like , where Protestants rose from 22% in 2000 to 41% by 2018 per national surveys. Empirical trends show accelerating, with Latin America's unaffiliated population doubling to 10% from 2010–2020, driven by and scandals, though constitutional invocations of persist in over 15 countries.

Asia

In Asia, models reflect a spectrum of implementations shaped by colonial legacies, communist ideologies, and post-independence efforts, often prioritizing state control over religious influence to foster unity amid ethnic and doctrinal diversity. Unlike Western strict separation, many Asian variants accommodate while subordinating it to national goals, with empirical data showing varying degrees of enforcement: for instance, surveys indicate low religiosity in urban correlating with economic development, while and exhibit higher religious adherence despite constitutional secularism. China exemplifies assertive secularism through state atheism, as enshrined in its 1982 Constitution, which subordinates religion to and prohibits members—numbering over 98 million as of 2023—from any religious affiliation. The government recognizes only five religions (, , , Catholicism, and ) under the 2018 Regulations on Religious Affairs, enforcing "" policies since 2016 that require religious doctrines and practices to align with and leadership, including mandatory patriotic education for and removal of foreign influences from texts. This approach has led to documented restrictions, such as the 2017 regulations banning minors under 18 from mosques and the demolition of over 1,500 crosses on churches between 2014 and 2016, justified by the state as preventing but criticized by observers for suppressing independent religious expression. India's constitutional framework, originally drafted in 1950 without the term "secular" but embodying equal respect for religions (sarva dharma sambhava), explicitly added "secular" via the 42nd Amendment in 1976 during a period of rule, affirming the state's neutrality while permitting interventions for social reform, such as the 1955 Hindu Marriage Act standardizing practices among comprising 79.8% of the population per 2011 census data. This accommodationist model allows religion-based personal laws for marriage and inheritance, coexisting with debates, but faces challenges from majoritarian politics: the in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) upheld as a basic structure, yet data from the 2021 survey shows 64% of Indians believing religious diversity strengthens national identity, amid rising communal tensions evidenced by over 1,000 incidents tracked in 2023. Japan's post-World War II Constitution of 1947 establishes a passive secularism via Article 20, which guarantees while barring the state from privileging any faith or funding religious organizations, a direct response to prewar State Shinto's role in ; Article 89 further prohibits public funds for religious activities. Enforcement has been pragmatic, with the upholding separations in cases like the 1997 Ehime Tamagawara case, ruling against shrine reconstructions funded by local taxes, though exceptions occur for cultural rituals: national leaders' visits to , honoring 2.5 million dead including Class-A criminals, persist despite international criticism, reflecting societal norms where 70% of the engages in Shinto-Buddhist practices without formal affiliation per 2020 agency surveys. Singapore maintains a managed secularism under its 1965 Constitution's Article 12, which ensures but empowers the state to regulate for harmony in a multiethnic (74% Chinese, 13% Malay Muslim per 2020 census), exemplified by the 1990 Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act prohibiting religious leaders from political incitement, leading to restraint orders against figures like a Christian pastor in 2018 for anti-Islamic remarks. This pragmatic framework, prioritizing stability over absolute laissez-faire, has empirically sustained low religious conflict rates—zero major riots since 1969—through institutions like the Inter-Religious Organisation, though it accommodates Muslim-specific provisions such as certification and madrasah funding, balancing secular governance with minority protections. Turkey, constitutionally secular since 1928 amendments under that abolished the , adopted a Swiss-inspired , and banned religious attire in public institutions, represented an early Muslim-majority experiment in laïcité to modernize Ottoman remnants. However, since the Justice and Development Party's 2002 rise, policies have eroded strict separation: the 2011 lifting of bans in universities and public service, conversion of to a in 2020, and 2023 curriculum expansions emphasizing Islamic history reflect a shift toward "pluralist" secularism favoring , with data showing numbers rising from 77,000 in 2002 to over 90,000 by 2022 amid declining enforcement of Atatürk-era controls. In , post-Soviet states like uphold in constitutions prohibiting religious parties, with 2020 laws fining to curb Islamist influences near , though underground revival poses enforcement challenges; similarly, Uzbekistan's 2021 reforms formalized separation while restricting "extremist" groups, building on Soviet-era controls. These cases illustrate how Asian often serves as a bulwark against theocratic threats, yet empirical outcomes vary, with state dominance sometimes yielding superficial neutrality rather than genuine pluralism.

Africa and Middle East

Sub-Saharan Africa features 27 constitutionally secular states, where constitutions explicitly declare no state religion and enshrine freedom of religion, often modeled on post-colonial efforts to foster national unity amid diverse Christian, Muslim, and traditional beliefs. These frameworks emerged prominently after independence waves in the 1960s, with provisions like Burkina Faso's 1991 Constitution (Article 31) prohibiting religious instruction in public schools and affirming secularity to prevent sectarian favoritism. Similarly, South Africa's 1996 Constitution establishes a secular order, mandating separation of religion and state institutions while protecting religious freedoms, though enforcement varies with occasional political accommodations for religious groups. Despite high religiosity—sub-Saharan populations exhibit twice the global average in religious adherence—state support for religion remains minimal, with fewer provisions for funding or privileges compared to Europe or Latin America, reflecting pragmatic limits on resources rather than ideological commitment. Implementation often diverges from constitutional ideals due to entrenched religious influences and weak institutions; for instance, in West Africa, 15 of 16 nations (excluding Mauritania's Islamic republic status) declare secularity, yet customary laws incorporating Sharia or tribal norms persist in family matters, undermining uniform application. This noncompliance stems from causal factors like popular religiosity driving electoral politics—evident in Nigeria's partial Sharia adoption in northern states since 1999 despite federal secularity—and limited judicial capacity to enforce separation, leading to de facto accommodations such as state-sponsored pilgrimages in countries like Senegal. Empirical data from Pew Research indicates that while constitutions bar religious tests for office, political leaders frequently invoke faith for legitimacy, correlating with lower pluralism scores in regions like the Sahel, where Islamist insurgencies challenge secular governance since the 2010s. In the , secular state models have been rarer and more transient, with most nations embedding as the in constitutions, such as Egypt's 2014 framework requiring laws to align with principles while nominally upholding freedoms. Historical attempts, like Tunisia's 1956 Constitution under —which banned , equalized inheritance, and marginalized religious courts—advanced legal through modernization, reducing clerical influence until the 2011 revolution and subsequent 2022 amendments reasserting 's role. Ba'athist regimes in (from 1963) and (until 2003) imposed assertive , suppressing Islamist groups and promoting pan-Arab identity over religious law, but these eroded amid civil wars and power vacuums, yielding hybrid systems where influences penal codes despite secular rhetoric. Challenges in the region arise from causal dynamics of Islamist backlash against perceived Western-imposed , as seen in the Muslim Brotherhood's rise in post-2011, leading to reversals; surveys show declining among (e.g., 31% nonreligious in by 2019), yet state structures resist full separation due to elite reliance on religious legitimacy for stability. Lebanon's system, formalized in the 1943 and Taif Agreement (1989), allocates power by sect rather than enforcing neutrality, perpetuating fragility without true secularity. Overall, Middle Eastern secular experiments highlight tensions between imposed reforms and endogenous religious norms, with empirical failures linked to incomplete institutional buy-in, contrasting Africa's broader but shallower constitutional adoption.

Oceania and Other Regions

Australia enshrines secular principles in Section 116 of its 1901 Constitution, which bars the federal government from enacting laws to establish any religion, impose religious observance, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or require religious tests for public office. This framework prevents any denomination from receiving official state endorsement, fostering a neutral stance toward religious institutions despite historical Christian cultural influences. State-level variations exist, but federal policy avoids funding or privileging specific faiths beyond general welfare provisions. New Zealand functions as a secular state without a designated official religion, with protections for religious freedom originating in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and reinforced by the 1990 Bill of Rights Act, which safeguards , conscience, and religion. The enforces separation between political authorities and religious bodies, prohibiting state interference in worship while allowing voluntary faith-based education and . Demographic shifts underscore this neutrality: the 2018 census recorded 48.2% of respondents with no religious affiliation, up from 42% in 2013, reflecting declining institutional adherence amid stable legal . Pacific island nations exhibit greater religious integration, with dominating populations—often exceeding 90% adherence—and varying degrees of state involvement. , for instance, lacks an official under its 1875 , permitting free exercise across denominations despite the Free Wesleyan Church's cultural prominence and parliamentary reservations for its members. In contrast, Samoa's 1962 affirms as foundational to its governance, embedding religious oaths in oaths of office, while privileges the . Other states like and maintain secular constitutions guaranteeing religious liberty but accommodate faith-based laws on issues such as observance, where Christian norms influence policy without formal establishment. These arrangements reflect colonial legacies and indigenous conversions, yielding higher than continental , with below 1% in most censuses. Antarctica, as a governed by the 1959 among claimant states, hosts no permanent population or sovereign entities, rendering state-religion dynamics inapplicable; research stations operate under sponsoring nations' secular or non-secular frameworks without independent religious policy.

Benefits and Empirical Achievements

Promotion of Pluralism and Innovation

Secular states foster by constitutionally prohibiting the establishment of any single faith as official, thereby enabling the coexistence of diverse beliefs without state or favoritism toward a dominant . This neutrality prevents the suppression of minority groups and encourages voluntary adherence to various doctrines, as seen in the United States where the First Amendment's has sustained high levels of religious diversity, including Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, and non-religious communities comprising over 70% of the population identifying with a faith tradition. In contrast, states with established religions often exhibit lower pluralism, as official endorsement marginalizes alternatives. Empirical measures, such as the Global Religious Diversity Index, show secular nations like and scoring higher in accommodating multiple faiths due to legal impartiality that protects free exercise while barring public funding disparities. This pluralistic environment extends to intellectual and cultural domains, where secular governance diminishes religiously motivated censorship, allowing competing worldviews to inform policy through evidence rather than dogma. For instance, in , despite Hindu majoritarianism pressures, constitutional has integrated Muslim, Christian, and into public life, promoting social stability amid diversity—evidenced by lower inter-religious conflict rates compared to theocratic neighbors like . Such frameworks counteract zero-sum religious competitions that historically led to persecutions, as in pre-, by institutionalizing tolerance as a civic norm. On innovation, secular states correlate with elevated technological and scientific output, as reduced aligns with attitudes favoring empirical over doctrinal adherence. Cross-country analyses reveal a robust negative association between levels and patents per capita, with secular nations like (1,839 patents per million in recent rankings) and (highest globally at over 7,000 per USD 100 billion GDP) outperforming more religious peers. Individual-level studies confirm inversely predicts pro- traits, such as to new ideas and risk tolerance, explaining why secular and dominate Nobel Prizes in sciences (over 80% of awards since 1901). Causal mechanisms include diminished opposition to fields like or cosmology, where religious states have historically impeded advances—e.g., Galileo's condemnation—while secular neutrality permits market-driven and state-funded R&D unhindered by theological vetoes. Comparative data further link religious indices, higher in secular contexts, to innovation gains via diverse talent pools and reduced conformity pressures.

Evidence from Comparative Studies

Comparative studies demonstrate that secular states, through separation of religious and state authority, correlate with superior economic and social outcomes relative to religiously integrated or theocratic systems. An analysis of 109 countries using cohort-based measures from the European Values Study and (spanning 1910–2010) alongside GDP per capita data from the Maddison Project Database found that secularization increases preceded , with a one standard deviation rise in secularization predicting GDP gains of $1,000 after 10 years, $2,800 after 20 years, and $5,000 after 30 years; time-lagged multilevel regressions controlled for and cultural factors, revealing strengthening correlations over decades (R² rising from 4% in the 1910s to 40% by the 1990s). Religious freedom, a hallmark of secular enabling pluralism without state-imposed , further evidences these benefits in panel regressions across 156 countries (2006–2018) from the Gallup World Poll, where a one standard deviation increase in religious —proxied by indicators of government restrictions and social hostilities—was associated with a 0.03 rise in individual thriving probability and a 0.08 standard deviation increase in , robust to country-year fixed effects, GDP growth controls, and instrumental variable approaches using historical missionary exposure for causality. These effects operated via enhanced , such as and expression freedoms, contrasting with restrictions in states favoring religious monopoly. Broader cross-national research reinforces that , measured by societal rejection of religious and tolerance for diversity, prospectively predicts , , and democratic advancement. In a study tracking changes from the late onward across approximately 200 nations, rises in secular cultural orientations—controlling for initial conditions—forecasted higher GDP per capita, literacy rates, and democracy scores, attributing to reduced ideological conflicts and freer markets for ideas, though resource-dependent religious states occasionally deviated due to exogenous rather than . Such patterns hold despite some findings of positive growth effects from certain religious beliefs (e.g., accountability doctrines like ), which secular frameworks accommodate without institutionalizing, avoiding the opportunity costs of mandatory attendance observed to hinder productivity in high-participation religious societies. Limitations include potential reverse in wealth-religiosity links and data gaps in less-developed regions, yet the temporal precedence of secular shifts underscores causal realism in design.

Criticisms and Challenges

Erosion of Moral Foundations

Critics of secular governance argue that the separation of state from religious authority erodes foundational moral structures by replacing transcendent ethical absolutes with subjective relativism or state-defined norms, leading to weakened social bonds and increased . This perspective draws on observations that correlates with declines in traditional moral indicators, such as stability and communal , as religious institutions historically enforced shared values through and . Empirical supports aspects of this view: for instance, longitudinal analyses across countries show that decreases in predict rises in rates, though not necessarily non-violent offenses, suggesting a specific in inhibitions against absent religious moral restraints. Family dissolution provides another metric of moral erosion, with religious adherence linked to greater marital durability. In the United States, women raised in religious households experience divorce rates approximately 35% lower than those from non-religious backgrounds, even accounting for earlier marriage ages common among the faithful; regular religious service attendance further halves risk compared to non-attenders. This pattern holds internationally, where secular union practices like premarital —prevalent in secular states—elevate probabilities through reduced selectivity in partner commitment. Suicide rates, often tied to existential despair in frameworks like Durkheim's anomie theory, exhibit a negative correlation with religiosity in global reviews. Meta-analyses of over 100 studies indicate that higher levels of religiousness and spirituality predict lower suicidal ideation and attempts, with irreligiosity emerging as a risk factor in community samples; for example, non-religious individuals show elevated suicidality odds in U.S. cohorts. In secular-stronghold nations like those in Northern Europe, despite high welfare provisions, suicide rates remain elevated relative to more religious peers, potentially reflecting the void left by diminished moral purpose. Social cohesion suffers similarly, as religious participation fosters trust, , and perceived cooperativeness more effectively than secular alternatives. European surveys reveal that frequent religious service attendance boosts generalized trust and , countering the fragmentation observed in highly secular contexts where moral consensus frays without unifying doctrines. While some data highlight low in secular societies—attributable to strong institutions inherited from religious eras—these overlook long-term trends where undermines self-regulation, as evidenced by property reductions in more religious nations. Overall, these patterns suggest secular states risk hollowing out the ethical that sustains societal order, prompting reversals toward religious resurgence in response to perceived decay.

Failures in Neutrality and Integration

Secular states often assert neutrality by prohibiting state endorsement of any religion, yet this framework frequently privileges irreligious norms over religious practices, particularly those of minority faiths perceived as incompatible with secular values. In , the application of laïcité—formalized by the 1905 —has extended to policies like the 2004 law banning "conspicuous" religious symbols in public schools, which disproportionately affects Muslim headscarves and has been linked to heightened and among the country's estimated 5.7 million . Critics argue this enforces a de facto secular orthodoxy, alienating believers and fostering resentment, as evidenced by surveys showing French reporting higher rates of perceived compared to other groups, with policies like bans on beaches in 2016 exacerbating radicalization risks by signaling state hostility toward Islamic expression. These neutrality lapses contribute to integration breakdowns, where religious immigrants form parallel communities resistant to host-society norms. In the , approximately 85 councils function as bodies for issues like and , often applying interpretations of Islamic law that conflict with equality principles, such as favoring male testimony or pressuring women into polygamous arrangements without . A 2018 independent review commissioned by the government identified systemic failures, including councils' lack of oversight and instances of women facing intimidation to accept religiously sanctioned but unequal outcomes, undermining the state's monopoly on justice. Similar patterns emerge across , with empirical studies documenting stalled assimilation among Muslim populations due to mutual : host societies exhibit , while immigrant groups exhibit higher in-group preferences, leading to socioeconomic disparities like rates for Muslim immigrants exceeding 20% in countries such as and , compared to national averages below 10%. In , Islamist networks have established competing social structures in migrant-dense suburbs, correlating with elevated —such as attacks rising from 0 in 2010 to over 100 annually by 2018—and governance voids filled by clan-based or religious authorities rather than state institutions. Experimental research, including trust games and surveys in and , reveals that even third-generation Muslim descendants maintain stronger ties to co-religionists, perpetuating segregation as secular policies inadvertently incentivize withdrawal over adaptation.

Backlash and Reversals

In countries where was imposed through top-down reforms in the , particularly in Muslim-majority societies, popular backlash from religious constituencies has often led to policy reversals or erosion of state-religion separation. These reversals stem from tensions between elite-driven modernization and attachment to Islamic norms, as evidenced by electoral gains for Islamist parties and subsequent legal changes prioritizing religious principles over strict laïcité. Empirical patterns show that such backlashes frequently occur in post-colonial states where secular constitutions clashed with predominant religious demographics, resulting in hybrid regimes blending democratic elements with theocratic tendencies. Turkey exemplifies this dynamic under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has governed since 2002. Initially presenting as moderate conservatives, AKP administrations incrementally dismantled Kemalist secularism, including expanding Imam Hatip religious schools from 450 in 2002 to over 5,000 by 2020, comprising about 15% of secondary education enrollment. In 2016, following a failed coup, Erdoğan purged secular-leaning military and judicial officials, consolidating power and enabling policies like the 2020 reconversion of Hagia Sophia from museum to mosque, reversing Atatürk's 1935 decree. By 2025, proposals for a new constitution have included provisions to further embed Islamic references, marking a shift from enforced secularism to "Islamization from above," though societal secularization persists at grassroots levels. This evolution reflects causal pressures from a devout Anatolian base, with AKP securing 52.6% of votes in the 2002 election amid economic grievances against secular elites. Iran provides a stark case of full reversal, transitioning from the secular Pahlavi (1925–1979), which promoted Western-style reforms like unveiling women in 1936 and banning religious attire in public institutions, to the after the 1979 revolution. The Shah's regime suppressed clerical influence, but widespread opposition from Shia ulema and bazaari classes, fueled by oil-funded modernization alienating traditional sectors, culminated in Ayatollah Khomeini's , where became state law and religious oversight bodies like the Guardian Council gained veto power. Post-revolution constitutions explicitly rejected , with over 90% voter approval in the 1979 establishing velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist). This reversal underscores how secular authoritarianism, lacking broad legitimacy, invites religious counter-mobilization, as seen in the revolution's participation of millions in protests peaking at 10% of the population by late 1978. In , constitutionally committed to since 1976, Hindu-majority backlash against perceived minority appeasement has manifested under (BJP) rule since 2014, though without formal constitutional reversal. Policies like the 2019 abrogation of Article 370 ending Jammu and Kashmir's autonomy, the Citizenship Amendment Act favoring non-Muslim refugees, and promotion of a have been interpreted by critics as tilting towards Hindu cultural dominance, correlating with a 30% rise in communal incidents reported from 2014–2019. BJP's electoral success, including 303 seats in the 2019 elections, reflects voter support for correcting "pseudo-secularism," per party rhetoric, amid surveys showing 64% of Hindus favoring religious influence in politics by 2021. However, judicial interventions, such as upholding secular oaths, have prevented outright theocratic shifts, highlighting resilience in federal structures despite erosion claims from sources often aligned with opposition narratives.

Comparative Shortcomings vs. Religious States

Secular states, despite their emphasis on neutrality and individual rights, demonstrate comparative shortcomings in social cohesion relative to states with integrated religious , where shared faith-based values foster higher levels of interpersonal trust and communal . Empirical analyses reveal that regular religious service attendance correlates positively with generalized trust, volunteering rates, and perceptions of others' cooperativeness, mechanisms that strengthen societal bonds in religiously oriented societies. In contrast, secular frameworks, by design, avoid endorsing transcendent moral anchors, which can exacerbate fragmentation in diverse populations lacking alternative unifying narratives, as evidenced by studies highlighting religion's role in cultivating shared beliefs and . Reports from organizations examining communities underscore how religious institutions actively mitigate isolation and promote local service provision, functions often underemphasized or replicated less effectively by secular bureaucracies. Demographic sustainability represents another area of vulnerability, with secular states frequently experiencing rates insufficient to maintain population stability, straining pension systems and labor markets over time. This contrasts with religiously governed states, where doctrinal emphasis on and procreation sustains higher birth rates; for example, Israel's integration of Jewish religious principles contributes to a exceeding 3 children per woman as of 2023, bucking global secular trends toward sub-replacement levels. In secular , average hovered around 1.5 in recent years, correlating with aging populations and increased dependency ratios that challenge fiscal viability without immigration-dependent policies prone to cultural tensions. Religious , by embedding pronatalist norms, avoids such self-undermining dynamics, preserving long-term societal renewal. Economically, the shift toward has been linked to diminished adherence to religious precepts that encourage prudence and , potentially elevating risk-taking and eroding gains from faith-induced behavioral discipline. Research indicates that declining forgoes advantages like reduced and enhanced , observable in historical correlations between Protestant ethic influences and in now-secularizing economies. Theocratic or religiously infused states, such as under Sharia-influenced governance, have leveraged doctrinal stability to channel oil wealth into sovereign funds yielding trillions in assets by 2024, demonstrating how religious legitimacy can underpin policy continuity amid resource volatility—outcomes less assured in secular systems susceptible to ideological churn and short-term . While secular states excel in metrics, their can foster policy inconsistencies, as seen in variable responses to ethical dilemmas like , where religious states maintain firmer boundaries grounded in scriptural rather than evolving consensus. These patterns suggest that secular detachment from first-order ethical commitments incurs hidden costs in resilience and collective discipline, even if offset by other freedoms.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9240275/
  2. https://repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/item/30688
  3. https://origins.osu.edu/review/secularism-past-and-future
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147596713001108
  5. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1388?d=%252F10.1093%252Facrefore%252F9780190228637.001.0001%252Facrefore-9780190228637-e-1388&p=emailAsBKpSZW11UhA
  6. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2007/12/03/religion-and-secularism-the-american-experience/
  7. https://matrix.berkeley.edu/events/the-secular-state-and-religious-tolerance/
  8. https://macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2024-07/A%2520Conceptual%2520Analysis%2520of%2520Secularism%2520and%2520its%2520Legitimacy%2520in%2520the%2520Constitutional%2520Democratic%2520State.pdf
  9. https://www.irla.org/a-statement-about-the-relationship-between-the-secular-state-and-certain-religious-freedoms
  10. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20503032221081837
  11. https://divineatheist.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-secular-and-an-atheist-state
  12. https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/laicite-france-secularism-us/
  13. https://www.swlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2025-02/K%2520Weaver%2520Article.pdf
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11208729/
  15. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
  16. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol101/iss3/4/
  17. https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-enlightenment-and-how-did-it-transform-politics
  18. https://secularhumanism.org/a-secular-humanist-declaration/
  19. https://about.asianart.org/press/the-cyrus-cylinder-and-ancient-persia-a-new-beginning/
  20. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/was-asoka-really-a-secularist-avantlalettre-ancient-indian-pluralism-and-toleration-in-historical-perspective/A5B5F9C796FBBE7618BB09584D6AB511
  21. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/dhammika/wheel386.html
  22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44141855
  23. https://historywithahmad.com/religious-policy-of-akbar/
  24. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/
  25. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/goldie-a-letter-concerning-toleration-and-other-writings
  26. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/john-locke-a-letter-concerning-toleration-1689-and-two-treatises-on-government-1690
  27. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/voltaire/
  28. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/voltaire/
  29. https://revolution.chnm.org/d/272
  30. https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/thomas-jefferson-and-religious-freedom/
  31. https://iep.utm.edu/american-enlightenment-thought/
  32. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20201111-french-secularism-explained
  33. https://www.historytoday.com/what-french-secularism
  34. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/02/how-religion-declines-around-the-world/
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62452-z
  36. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/06/09/how-the-global-religious-landscape-changed-from-2010-to-2020/
  37. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/02/26/decline-of-christianity-in-the-us-has-slowed-may-have-leveled-off/
  38. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2025/01/28/comparing-levels-of-religious-nationalism-around-the-world/
  39. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10357711003736436
  40. https://politicalscience.sdsu.edu/_resources/docs/kuru/kuru-wp.pdf
  41. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/passive-and-assertive-secularism-historical-conditions-ideological-struggles-and-state-policies-toward-religion/414FA9A6E9FDF0414FCA57D220447DF7
  42. https://www.themontrealreview.com/2009/Secularism-and-State-Policies-Toward-Religion-The-United-States-France-and-Turkey.php
  43. https://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/05/passive-secularism-as-active-management.html
  44. https://www.insightturkey.com/file/781/secularism-and-state-policies-towards-religion-the-united-states-france-and-turkey-winter-2010-vol12-no1
  45. https://oxfordre.com/politics/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-663
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254967941_Passive_and_Assertive_Secularism_Historical_Conditions_Ideological_Struggles_and_State_Policies_toward_Religion
  47. https://academic.oup.com/book/25733/chapter/193254006
  48. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-3-2/ALDE_00013072/
  49. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/accommodationist-and-separationist-theories
  50. https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/14/4/984/2927931
  51. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=ljh
  52. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/accommodationism-and-religion/
  53. https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2158&context=law-review
  54. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1546&context=journal_articles
  55. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/accommodationist-and-separationist-theories-of-the-establishment-clause
  56. https://scholarship.stu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1676&context=stlr
  57. https://states.atheists.org/issues/constitution
  58. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/first-amendment-and-religion
  59. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-i/interpretations/264
  60. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2020/11/23/what-is-french-laicite
  61. https://www.info.gouv.fr/upload/media/organization/0001/01/sites_default_files_contenu_piece-jointe_2017_02_libertes_et_interdits_eng.pdf
  62. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Turkey_2017
  63. https://secularismandnonreligion.org/articles/10.5334/snr.145
  64. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/indian-secularism-a-legal-lens/
  65. https://www.worldpolicycenter.org/constitutional-equal-rights-across-religion-and-belief-0
  66. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/02-establishment-of-religion.html
  67. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/05/28/in-western-europe-most-people-back-church-state-separation-even-while-many-willingly-pay-church-tax/
  68. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/establishment-clause-tests
  69. https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/july-2022/church-and-state-challenged-in-new-ruling
  70. https://www.oyez.org/issues/338
  71. https://www.conseil-etat.fr/en/news/display-of-nativity-scenes-by-public-authorities
  72. https://www.conseil-etat.fr/Pages-internationales/english/news/french-secularism-banning-abaya-style-clothing-in-schools-is-legal
  73. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-ruling-on-socialism-secularism/article68915865.ece
  74. https://www.barandbench.com/columns/tracing-the-supreme-courts-reading-of-socialist-and-secular-in-the-constitution
  75. https://edukemy.com/blog/landmark-judgements-on-secularism-indian-society-notes/
  76. https://tcf.org/content/report/turkeys-troubled-experiment-secularism/
  77. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4958210
  78. https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/en/president/former-presidents-speeches/zuhtu-arslan/speeches/re-interpreting-secularism-in-a-democratic-society-a-cursory-view-of-the-case-law-of-the-turkish-constitutional-court-international-symposium-on-constitutional-courts-as-the-guardian-of-ideology-and-democracy-in-a-pluralistic-society/
  79. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llglrd/2019669468/2019669468.pdf
  80. https://www.mei.edu/publications/religion-nationalism-and-populism-turkey-under-akp
  81. https://hrwf.eu/france-the-miviludes-convicted-for-the-5th-time-in-2025-must-again-pay-its-victim/
  82. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/freedom-religion-turkey-foreign-policy-implications
  83. https://www.ijllr.com/post/secularism-and-personal-laws-a-constitutional-dilemma-in-india
  84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01419870.2022.2032248
  85. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2005/12/09/100th-anniversary-of-secularism-in-france/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8525454/
  87. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/04/30/in-western-european-countries-with-church-taxes-support-for-the-tradition-remains-strong/
  88. https://www.icnl.org/resources/research/ijnl/church-and-state-relationships-in-german-public-benefit-law
  89. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8886/
  90. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/05/29/10-key-findings-about-religion-in-western-europe/
  91. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/474399/IPOL-LIBE_ET%282013%29474399_EN.pdf
  92. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2014/11/13/religion-in-latin-america/
  93. https://tif.ssrc.org/2009/02/05/discerning-the-religious-spirit-of-secular-states-in-asia/
  94. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/10/23/10-things-to-know-about-chinas-policies-on-religion/
  95. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/religion-china
  96. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/china
  97. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4971354
  98. https://www.mcgill.ca/humanrights/article/end-dream-rise-and-fall-indias-secular-constitutionalism
  99. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-crisis-of-indian-secularism/
  100. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol21/iss2/5/
  101. https://fot.humanists.international/countries/asia-eastern-asia/japan/
  102. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/14/2/219
  103. https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/islam-muslims-and-the-secular-state-in-singapore/
  104. https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/turkey
  105. https://freethinker.co.uk/2023/08/how-turkey-abandoned-secularism/
  106. https://www.silkroadstudies.org/publications/silkroad-papers-and-monographs/item/13371-religion-and-the-secular-state-in-kyrgyzstan.html
  107. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504630.2025.2578020
  108. https://academic.oup.com/jcs/article/66/1/13/7219305
  109. https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-secular-state-how-south-africa-has-tried-to-separate-religion-and-politics-229637
  110. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-religion/article/religious-citizens-secular-states-why-do-states-in-subsaharan-africa-provide-minimal-support-to-religion/BBBBC46DD561BA9086AB9AD800BEB27B
  111. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315591506-10/states-religions-west-africa-problems-perspectives-fatou-kin%25C3%25A9-camara
  112. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/07/15/a-closer-look-at-how-religious-restrictions-have-risen-around-the-world/
  113. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207152251319750
  114. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19370679.2007.12023103
  115. https://www.fpri.org/article/2015/11/religion-and-secularism-in-the-middle-east-a-primer/
  116. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-secular-life/201907/secularism-hits-the-arab-world
  117. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48703377
  118. https://jcl-mena.org/article.php?aid=36&iname=9
  119. https://www.freethinkersinternational.net/the-future-of-secularism-in-the-middle-east/
  120. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s116.html
  121. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/is-religion-defined-in-section-116-of-the-australian-constitution
  122. https://ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-thought-conscience-and-religion-or-belief
  123. https://teara.govt.nz/en/religion-and-society/page-3
  124. https://culturalatlas.sbs.com.au/new-zealand-culture/new-zealand-culture-religion
  125. https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-report-on-international-religious-freedom/new-zealand
  126. https://www.iclrs.org/app/uploads/2025/02/tonga_religious_freedom_booklet_redesign_tongan-English.pdf
  127. https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/tonga
  128. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00622590/file/Religion_Pluralism_and_Conflicts_in_the.pdf
  129. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/sidelining-god-why-secular-climate-projects-pacific-islands-are-failing
  130. https://academic.oup.com/book/5520/chapter/148446055
  131. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/states-religious-diversity-and-crisis-of-secularism-0/
  132. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21052/w21052.pdf
  133. https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/world-intellectual-property-indicators-2024-highlights/en/patents-highlights.html
  134. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20151032
  135. https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp6797.pdf
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6051740/
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7529430/
  138. https://phys.org/news/2020-02-secularism-tolerance-minority-groups-future.html
  139. https://www.hoover.org/research/religion-and-economic-development
  140. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31961775/
  141. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-religious-marriage-paradox-younger-marriage-less-divorce
  142. https://hfh.fas.harvard.edu/religion-and-divorce
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3371187/
  144. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949732925000146
  145. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10757271/
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7310534/
  147. https://academic.oup.com/esr/article/40/1/143/7140383
  148. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0191886996000232
  149. https://ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/religious-discrimination-against-muslims-in-france
  150. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/eurocrisispress/2021/06/15/weaponization-of-laicite/
  151. https://saisreview.sais.jhu.edu/the-alienation-victimization-and-frustration-of-french-muslims/
  152. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a750e8040f0b6397f35d531/6.4152_HO_CPFG_Report_into_Sharia_Law_in_the_UK_WEB.pdf
  153. https://voz.us/en/world/240608/11429/sharia-councils-in-the-u-k-a-parallel-legal-system.html
  154. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/europes-failure-to-integrate-muslims/
  155. https://politicalscience.stanford.edu/publications/why-muslim-integration-fails-christian-heritage-societies
  156. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/05/30/sweden-takes-notice-of-french-report-on-muslim-brotherhood-infiltration_6741845_4.html
  157. https://academic.oup.com/book/26149/chapter/194220706
  158. https://www.opindia.com/2025/05/how-turkey-has-moved-from-ataturks-secularism-towards-islamist-fundamentalism-under-president-erdogan/
  159. https://newideal.aynrand.org/how-turkey-went-from-secular-to-islamic-authoritarianism/
  160. https://thearabweekly.com/erdogan-steers-turkey-toward-end-secularism-new-constitution-draft
  161. https://www.inss.org.il/publication/turkey-iran/
  162. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2019/04/the-bjp-in-power-indian-democracy-and-religious-nationalism?lang=en
  163. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/india-muslims-marginalized-population-bjp-modi
  164. https://eastasiaforum.org/2025/05/08/hindu-nationalism-threatens-indias-secular-foundations/
  165. https://www.thegazelle.org/issue/170/sorry-but-indias-secularism-is-a-bit-harder-to-kill
  166. https://ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR19D5972.pdf
  167. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/news/faith-groups-role-in-social-cohesion-undervalued-says-new-report-commissioned-by-the-british-academy-and-the-faith-and-belief-forum/
  168. https://wol.iza.org/articles/the-rise-of-secularism-and-its-economic-consequences/long
  169. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6402818/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.