You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
How religion and political authority should be related is one of the oldest and most consequential questions in the study of dialogues. Societies have answered it in radically different ways, from theocracy, in which divine law is the law of the land, to strict secularism, in which religion is rigorously excluded from the public institutions of the state. Between these poles sit the established church of England, the "wall of separation" model of the United States, and the assertive secularism of French laïcité. The AQA dialogues require you to grasp these models, to assess the specific case of the Church of England, and to weigh the central modern tension — between the freedom to practise one's religion and the equal treatment of all citizens, religious and non-religious alike. This lesson sets out the principal models, the arguments for and against establishment, the question of religion's place in democratic politics, and the legal management of religious freedom.
Key term: Establishment — the formal, legal recognition of a particular church as the official church of the state. In England the Church of England is the established church, with the monarch as its Supreme Governor.
Key term: Secular state — a state that is constitutionally neutral on religion and maintains no establishment. Neutrality can be passive (the state stays out of religion's way, as broadly in the United States) or assertive (the state actively keeps religion out of the public sphere, as in French laïcité).
| Model | Core arrangement | Representative examples |
|---|---|---|
| Theocracy | Religious leaders govern; divine law is the law of the state | Historic: the Papal States; contemporary: Iran (Shia clerical guardianship) |
| Established religion | One church has official status, with toleration of others | England (Church of England); Denmark (Evangelical Lutheran) |
| Passive secularism / civil religion | No establishment, but shared civic rituals carry religious overtones | The United States (the First Amendment "wall of separation"; yet "In God We Trust") |
| Assertive secularism (laïcité) | The state actively confines religion to the private sphere | France; Turkey under Atatürk |
| State atheism | The state actively suppresses religion | The USSR; Maoist China; North Korea |
It is worth stressing that "secular" is not one thing. American secularism protects religion from the state and is consistent with a highly religious society; French laïcité protects the state (and the citizen) from religion and treats public religious display with suspicion. Both are "secular", yet they pull in opposite directions — a distinction that the best answers exploit.
At one extreme of the spectrum stands theocracy, government by religious authority under divine law. The clearest modern example is the Islamic Republic of Iran established after the 1979 revolution, whose constitution rests on the doctrine of velayat-e faqih — the "guardianship of the jurist" — articulated by Ayatollah Khomeini: in the absence of the hidden Imam, ultimate authority rests with a supreme religious jurist who guards the application of Islamic law. Iran combines elected institutions (a president and parliament) with unelected clerical bodies (the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council) that can veto legislation and vet candidates, so it is a hybrid rather than a pure theocracy, but religious authority is constitutionally supreme.
The arguments for theocracy, from within the traditions that defend it, are that divine law is the highest law and that a state ordering its common life by God's revealed will is more just and more authentic than one governed by fallible human preference. The arguments against are powerful and widely held: theocracy denies the freedom of conscience of dissenters and minorities; it fuses coercive state power with claims to absolute religious truth, which historically breeds persecution; and it offers no peaceful mechanism for correcting religious error, since to question the rulers is to question God. For most liberal political philosophers, the very point of the secular state — in either its passive or assertive form — is to prevent exactly this fusion of ultimate truth-claims with coercive power.
Key term: Theocracy — rule by religious authority under what is claimed to be divine law; in its modern Iranian form, the doctrine of velayat-e faqih, the guardianship of the supreme jurist.
The United States offers the great contrast to both establishment and laïcité. Its First Amendment contains two religion clauses: the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") and the Free Exercise Clause ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). Thomas Jefferson's famous gloss, a "wall of separation between church and state", expresses the passive secular ideal: the state neither funds nor favours any church, precisely so that religion may flourish freely in society. The paradoxical result — much studied in this topic — is that the most constitutionally secular of the major Western states has long been among the most religious of its societies, exactly as the religious-economy theorists (Stark and Finke) would predict: a free, competitive religious market unencumbered by a state monopoly.
Alongside this runs what the sociologist Robert Bellah (in a celebrated 1967 essay) called American civil religion: a diffuse set of shared beliefs, symbols and rituals — invocations of God at presidential inaugurations, "In God We Trust" on the currency, the sacralisation of the founding and of national sacrifice — that binds the nation without belonging to any single church. Civil religion is religion in a generic, public, unifying register, distinct from establishment because it privileges no denomination, yet distinct from strict laïcité because it does not banish the religious from public life. It illustrates a fourth possibility between establishment and assertive secularism: a non-established public religiosity.
Key term: Civil religion (Bellah) — a society's shared, generic religious symbols and rituals that confer sacred significance on the political community itself, without establishing any particular church.
Laïcité is the French constitutional principle, rooted in the 1905 law on the separation of the churches and the state, that the Republic is secular and guarantees freedom of conscience while keeping religion out of its public institutions. In its modern, assertive form it has generated some of Europe's sharpest church–state controversies: the 2004 law banned "conspicuous" religious symbols (the Islamic headscarf, the Jewish kippah, large crosses) in state schools, and the 2011 law prohibited the full-face veil (the niqab and burqa) in all public spaces. Defenders argue that laïcité secures a neutral public sphere in which all citizens meet as equals, unmarked by religious difference, and protects individuals — especially women — from communal pressure. Critics counter that, far from being neutral, assertive laïcité discriminates in practice against visibly religious minorities, particularly Muslims, and confuses the secularity of the state with an imposed secularity on citizens. The European Court of Human Rights nonetheless upheld the French veil ban in S.A.S. v France (2014), accepting the contested rationale of "living together" (le vivre ensemble) as a legitimate aim — a striking illustration of how far margins of appreciation extend on religion in public.
The historical roots of laïcité explain its assertive temper. It was forged in the long, bitter struggle between the French Republic and the Roman Catholic Church, which had been entangled with the monarchy and the ancien régime; the 1905 separation was a hard-won victory of republican, anticlerical forces over a powerful church that had resisted democracy and modern science. Laïcité therefore carries a memory of liberation from an oppressive religious establishment, which is why it treats public religion with a suspicion that the Anglo-American traditions do not share. Understanding this genealogy is the key to evaluating it fairly: defenders see laïcité as the guarantor of equal citizenship and of the emancipation of the individual (and especially of women and ex-believers) from religious authority, while critics see a once-emancipatory principle now turned, in a multi-faith age, into an instrument that bears down on a vulnerable Muslim minority who pose no comparable threat to the Republic. The deepest objection is conceptual: a state that drives religion from the public square in the name of neutrality has arguably ceased to be neutral and has instead adopted a substantive secularism as its public creed.
The Church of England has been established since the Act of Supremacy (1534) under Henry VIII. The principal features of establishment are:
Key term: Establishment as public service — the modern defence of the Church of England's status not as a reflection of majority belief but as a framework of pastoral, civic and ceremonial provision held open on behalf of the whole nation, including other faiths and none.
Establishment is neither uniform nor immovable within the British Isles, and the comparisons are exam-useful. The Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1871 and the Church in Wales in 1920, in both cases without the collapse that defenders feared, demonstrating that an Anglican church can survive and even thrive once disestablished. The Church of Scotland, by contrast, is the national church but is not established in the English sense: it is self-governing and free of state control, an instructive intermediate model (sometimes called a "national" rather than an "established" church). These precedents matter because they show that disestablishment is a live, achievable option rather than a leap into the unknown, and that the link between establishment and a flourishing national church is contingent — indeed the disestablished Church in Wales and the never-established Church of Scotland are often held up as evidence that an Anglican or Presbyterian church may be strengthened, not weakened, by independence from the state.
Key term: Disestablishment — the severing of the formal, legal ties between a particular church and the state, removing its official status, as occurred with the Church of Ireland (1871) and the Church in Wales (1920).
The contemporary debate is sharpened by two pressures. The first is constitutional reform of the House of Lords: any serious move to an elected or part-elected second chamber raises directly the question of the twenty-six Lords Spiritual. The second is the religious profile of the country: with sub-50% Christian self-identification and a large non-religious plurality, defenders increasingly justify establishment less as a reflection of majority belief than as a framework of public service and hospitality — the Church holding open a public, ceremonial and pastoral space on behalf of the whole nation, including other faiths and none. Whether that re-description is a convincing rationale or a graceful retreat is one of the live questions of the topic.
Beyond the formal question of establishment lies the deeper philosophical question: should religious convictions shape law and policy in a pluralist democracy at all? Two influential answers frame the debate.
The case for restraint. John Rawls (1921–2002) argued, in his account of "public reason", that on fundamental constitutional questions citizens should justify coercive laws by appeal to reasons that others, holding different "comprehensive doctrines" (religious or secular), could reasonably accept — not by appeal to doctrines peculiar to one faith. Laws binding everyone should rest on grounds accessible to everyone.
The case for inclusion with translation. Jürgen Habermas (b. 1929) offers a more accommodating "post-secular" position. Religious citizens may, he argues, voice their convictions in the informal public sphere in religious terms, and secular citizens have a duty to take these seriously rather than dismiss them as irrational; but at the formal, institutional threshold (parliament, courts, administration) religious reasons must be "translated" into generally accessible secular language — his "institutional translation proviso". Both sides bear burdens: the religious must accept the authority of secular law and the findings of science; the secular must remain open to the moral insight religion can carry.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.