Church-state relations

The French parliament recently approved a law, with an overwhelming majority, banning in state schools the use of Islamic headwear, known as the "chador", worn by Muslim girls, and other conspicuous signs of religious denominations. Some other countries in Europe are tempted to follow suit; a case in point is the ruling by an Italian magistrate who ordered the crucifix to be removed from classrooms.

For us and our country, where Catholicism has been declared as the official religion of the state, all this is a bit difficult to understand, especially as it is happening in civilised nations which boast about the freedom and democracy of their people. We may very easily jump to the conclusion that these cases are other examples of religious intolerance which is so common in several African and Asian states.

However, things may become clearer if we take into consideration the underlying principle which motivated so many Europeans to agree, or at least tolerate, the French parliament's resolution forbidding religious symbols, that is, the concept of the secular state, or the criterion of separation between Church and state. The necessity for this was first publicly mooted back in 1802 by the third US President, Thomas Jefferson, who saw the need for the creation of "a wall of separation between Church and state".

President Jefferson's comment was inspired by an evident desire to be fair to all citizens of whatever religious faith. Indeed, he himself had more than 20 years earlier introduced the bill - viewed by some at the time as an affront to Christianity - on religious freedom which eventually became the first amendment of the US Constitution, stating: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or forbidding the free exercise thereof".

This meant that there was no official Church for the country as a whole and there was to be no preferment by the government of one religion over another. At the same time, however, it also meant, significantly, that there was to be no interference by the government in relations between the state and the Church within individual states.

Of course, it would be an utter distortion of US history and law to say that the practical policy of a "separation between the Church and state" involves an indifference to religion and the exclusion of cooperation between religion and government. The slogan is liable to more than one interpretation and, consequently, time and again, has been misinterpreted and wrongly applied.

The discussion about the exact interpretation of the concept of the separation of Church and state is likely to be prolonged in the future. But it is a widely accepted opinion that the lay state has come to stay and religious communities are expected to be wise enough to learn how to live with it.

However, their main concern, now and in every eventuality, is to insist on the fundamental principle governing relations between the Church and public authorities and the whole civil order. That is religious freedom, which is a primordial human right. Religious communities are bound to resist, strenuously and with every legitimate means, any infringement, even the most subdolous, of that God-given right.

On the other hand, according to a Vatican II decree on human liberty, "the civil authority must undertake to safeguard the religious freedom of all citizens, in an effective manner, by just legislation and other appropriate means".

For the sake of both free democratic citizenship and religion, it is better to have a reaffirmation of the practice of free cooperation between government and religious bodies. This cooperation should involve no special privilege to any group and no restriction on the religious liberty of any citizen.