Talk:State religion/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Norway

As of 21 May 2012 Norway does not longer have a public (state) religion, although the question remains if the Church of Norway is a state church. Ties to the government are also relaxed by letting the church's own bodies appoint all clergy, and by abolishing the cabinet/parliament oversight function in doctrinal issues. Bishops and priests are still civil servants paid by the state. And the King must still belong to the evangelical-lutheran faith. There is now work in progress to consider the church legislation and the possible creation of the church as an independent corporation. So in short: Religion has been separated from the state, but church is still a governmental agency. Strange perhaps, but true. --— Erik Jr. 14:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The official translation of Article 16 (§ 16) of the 21 May 2012 changes says that Church of Norway remains the "established church" while the Norwegian original says "people's church" (or perhaps "national church"). This (intentionally) vague wording has triggered a lot of discussion on Norwegian WP. --— Erik Jr. 14:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
This is just semantic hair-splitting based on the Norwegian language wording of one sentence in the constitution, which is unrelated to the meaning of the term state religion / state church in the English language, which is defined by this article as "a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state," and also to the actual legal, administrative and constitutional role of the state Church of Norway, and even to the meaning of the constitutional provision in question. In English, one can certainly say that Norway has a state religion, which is synonymous with state church in this context. Religion has absolutely not "been separated from the state" in Norway. You are reading far too much into one word, without taking its context and meaning into account. Per Weo (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary. The parliament, through a long and elaborate political process, deliberately removed the words "public religion" from the constitution. We can't just dismiss that change as semantics. As editors of WP we are not in the position to say what these words "actually" mean, that is original research per WP:SYNTH. This is one clear fact. Two other clear facts: Appointment of bishops are now in the hands of the church itself (rather than politicians in the cabinet) and doctrinal issues are also removed from political control. It is clear that ties to state are notably relaxed, although the label "state church" is still controversial (also see discussion Talk:Church of Norway). On Norwegian WP the label "state church" is removed. So it is absolutely not clear that Norway still has a state church. --— Erik Jr. 19:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Yet again, this issue comes up. I am very sure there are quite a few in Norway who want the Church of Norway to be disestablished. It is however not disestablished, even if the words 'public religion' have been removed from the constitution. Autonomy from the state in terms of clergy appointments and doctrine does not create a disestablished church. Even in Sweden, where the Church of Sweden ceased to be a state church in 2000, it is still a national church like the Church of Scotland and many of its links to the state have been retained. However, what happened in Sweden has not happened in Norway. In 2008, the Minister of Church Affairs, Trond Giske, stated that the Church of Norway remains Norway's state church: "The state church is retained. Neither the Labour Party nor the Centre Party had a mandate to agree to separate church and state." [orig: "Statskirkeordningen føres videre. Verken Ap eller Sp hadde mandat til å gå med på å skille stat og kirke."(see http://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/080410/losere-band-men-fortsatt-statskirke). The term state church (statskirke) may be controversial among Norwegians, but this does not change the status of the Church of Norway as the established church (i.e., state church). IACOBVS (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The point is that it is not clear if Norway has a state church. Because reliable sources disagree we should not (per WP:SYNTH) draw a conclusion on our own, as Per Weo insists. For instance the church itself states: "I 2012 endret Stortinget grunnloven slik at Norge ikke lenger har noen offentlig religion. Den norske kirke kan derfor ikke lenger betegnes «statskirken»." (translated: "In 2012 the Parliament changed the constitution such that Norway no longer has a public religion. The Church of Norway can accordingly no longer be labeled as "state church".) We had exactly the same discussion on NO-WP, the compromise there was the remove the words "state church" from the introduction. In fact, one of the editors on NO-WP is a prominent catholic priest agreed to the change in the article intro. In essence, the issue of "state church" is not entirely clear in Norway (because of the remaining ties), then it can not be resolved through a discussion on WP. --— Erik Jr. 18:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What you are claiming is "the church itself" is not in fact "the church itself", but factually wrong propaganda published by an anonymous, presumably low-level and incompetent webmaster-type employee of Kirkerådet (one of many bodies within the Church of Norway) who has taken it upon himself to make the laws in the country and overrule the Norwegian parliament and his own superior cabinet minister. Also, it is completely unrelated to both the constitutional role of the Church of Norway, and to the meaning of the term state church/religion in the English language. Even if Catholic priests are eager to deprive the Church of Norway of its constitutional role as state church, we must stick to the facts and to what the Norwegian parliament has decided. Per Weo (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
This may be the case that it is unclear as to whether the word statskirke can be validly used as describing the Church of Norway. However, the actual issue of a state religion is whether it is established by the state. In the case of Norway, all clergy are civil servants salaried by the state and of course the monarch must be a member of this church. So, while I might agree that the phrase "state church" is no longer used by the Church of Norway to describe itself, it still seems unquestionably established by the state - even if the constitutional language is awkward. If it goes the same way as the Church of Sweden did in 2000, then I would agree that it can be deleted from the map. But it hasn't gone that far yet. IACOBVS (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I think this a bit fuzzy and ambiguous. The article intro also use the words "official religion", "state church" and "state religion" as the same. After the constitutional changes in 2012 there is clearly no offcial religion in Norway. Until 2012 the cabinet had a particular "kirkelig statsråd" (cabinet meeting for church affairs) where only cabinet members affiliated with the church met, other ministers did not take part. Such a system was of course only possible because Norway then had an official religion (Lutheranism does not have a pope and Vatican to rule in church affairs). The article gives the impression that Norway has an official religion, that is not true anymore, Norway is fully secular. Only the practical (non-religious) managment of the church is taken care of by the government. And all religious organizations obtain funds from the government (this is in fact mentioned in the constitution). Regards — Erik Jr. 10:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect as you are Norwegian and I am not, Norway most certainly does have an establishment of religion and is not fully secular, even if the word "state church" is not used, while "national church" or more literally "people's church" (folkekirke) - a term borrowed from the Danish Constitution (folkekirken) - is used in the Constitution. Article 16 of the Constitution of Norway is quite emphatic: "All inhabitants of the realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion. The Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, will remain the Established Church (folkekirke) of Norway and will as such be supported by the State. Detailed provisions as to its system will be laid down by law. All religious and belief communities should be supported on equal terms."[1] In Norwegian: Alle innbyggere i riket har fri religionsutøvelse. Den norske kirke, en evangelisk-luthersk kirke, forblir Norges folkekirke og understøttes som sådan av staten. Nærmere bestemmelser om Kirkens ordning fastsettes ved Lov. Alle tros- og livssynssamfunn skal understøttes på lik linje. The English translation is the official one found on the website of the Storting (Parliament). The Storting purposefully translates folkekirke in this context as Established Church. So, while the Church of Norway may not claim to be a state church and Lutheranism may not be the official public religion as it once was, the Church of Norway remains the established church of Norway - and this thus makes Lutheranism the state religion. Best wishes. IACOBVS (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(Margin) Perhaps part of the problem is that the article uses various ambiguous concepts or labels such as state religion, established religion, state church, established church, or official religion interchangeably. Britannica describes established church: "The church is not free to make changes in such things as doctrine, order, or worship without the consent of the state. In accepting such obligations, the church usually, though not always, receives financial support and other special privileges." "Established church" is an odd and vague translation of "folkekirke". If "establishment of religion" (an unknown concept to) is not the same as "official religion", there is a problem of clarity in the article.

For me as a Norwegian it is really odd that the Church of Norway is still described as the official religion of the state. A constitutional change in Norway is a painstaking process and the idea of separating church from state has been around for 50 or 100 years. Finally in 2012 the words "public religion" was removed from the constitution, although some portrays this change as "hairsplitting" it is still a fact that politicians agreed to this change in the 198 years old article, we have to take it face value. After 2012 the Church of Norway is free to make changes in doctrine, order and worship - a crucial point. The church also enjoys full autonomy in the appointment of priests and bishops - also a crucial point because appointment of bishops were previously a political issue (left-wing and liberal politicians of course preferred liberal bishops). When there is autonomy in appointments there is also autonomy in dismissal, so politicians (the cabinet) can no longer dismiss priests for disobedience and insubordination. In essence: The Church of Norway is still a branch of the civil service, but other ties to the state are broken. So it is still tied to the state in practical, administrative issues, but not in religious issues. --— Erik Jr. 12:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with what you are saying. This article certainly has many issues. It is indeed an odd constitutional compromise in Norway that makes the Church of Norway both independent of the state in all internal matters, and yet externally privileged by the state in the sense that the state overtly supports this church as the 'people's church' - and by that it means that it is the church of and for all Norwegian people even if not all Norwegians are members (which is odd). The fact that the church is a branch of the civil service as far as the employment of its clergy is also a very strong level of state support. It also privileges the Church of Norway through its ties to the monarchy - and that provision in the constitution is unchanged. As for the hairsplitting, even the politicians who made the change to the constitution in 2012 were at times adamant that they had in fact not separated the church from the state, but many Norwegians feel they did. I am not sure Britannica's definition is of 'established church' is valid. It sounds like it is describing the Church of England, but there can be an establishment without state interference. For example, where Roman Catholicism is the established church (e.g., Liechtenstein) the state has no control over doctrine, order and worship. I think in this imperfect article the map that lists Norway and other places as having a state religion relies on this formula: where a state overtly supports a religion or church, it is de facto the state religion. For now, it seems that Norway still qualifies as having such an establishment of religion - because the state in Norway overtly supports the Church of Norway in a very special way (different from all other religions). It is in effect a branch of the civil service (as you say). To me this is enough to call it a state religion. If this tie is broken, then I can see it could be argued that the Church of Norway is truly disestablished (like in Sweden, although even there the Church of Sweden still retains some ties to the state and many privileges are still maintained). I would argue that we should keep Norway along with Denmark and Iceland as having a "state religion" on the map.IACOBVS (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The Church of Norway is not a clear-cut case because of the odd political compromise in Norway (as in other Scandinavian countries). For this reason the label "state church" is avoided on NO-WP, instead the details of the ties between state and church are described. We should be careful not to engage in OR per WP:SYNTH but for the purpose of the map it is acceptable (although somewhat misleading) to include Norway as a state church, but then the short paragraph on Norway (under Lutheranism) should make clear that Lutheranism is no longer the official or public religion.
Again, I think part of the problem is that the article is conceptually confusing: several related but different terms are bundled and used interchangeably. For instance the article does not distinguish between church as an organization (an enterprise, a hierarchy of employees) and church as a faith (i.e., religion, doctrines). For instance Lutheranism in Norway, Sweden and Denmark is the same religion, but not the same church. The notion of state church or state religion also depends on the historical context. Within Scandinavia the Reformation (around 1530) meant that the King seized the church both as an enterprise and as a faith. The church became a tool of government authority. For instance when compulsory primary education was introduced because of the needs of church, so education was basically in the hands of clergy. The 1814 constitution maintained the King's authority over church and Jesuits, Jews and monks were banned from the realm. When Norway developed as a modern liberal-democratic state during the 1800s Lutheranism as the only legal religion was effectively abandoned. Etc. Long list of changes that has gradually relaxed ties between state and church. This important historical context is of course very different within the Catholic church that by nature has a structure independent of the state. Despite the current Article 16 of the Constitution, there is no doubt that Norway is a secular state, in my opinion much more so than for instance Poland and Italy that are listed as secular states. In addition, the term "established" church/religion does not make any sense to me, this term seems to be related to a UK or US context. --— Erik Jr. 12:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
What you are saying is plainly wrong. The Norwegian WP even has an article called the new state church arrangement, as the 2008/2012 amendment is known as officially in that country.
State religion and state church are indeed broad, descriptive terms for establishments of religion that are privileged in a certain country. The nature of these privileges varies from country to country and are never exactly the same – much like terms like "parliamentary democracy" or "constitutional monarchy". "Established church" seems to be a typically UK term, although it is defined generically by encyclopedias such as Britannica e.g. as "a church recognized by law as the official church of a state or nation and supported by civil authority". There is no doubt the Church of Norway meets this definition. Since this is the English language WP, it is English language usage that matters.
I must again emphasize that the term "statskirke" (state church) has never been used in the constitution of Norway. When a country has a constitution that describes one church as the country's "people's church" (with a provision that is a near-verbatim copy of the provision for the Danish state church in the Danish constitution), it has a state church/religion according to the definition of this descriptive term in the English language. Per Weo (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Church of Sweden - Svenska kyrkan

Swedish wikipedia notes that Church of Sweden was separated from the state in 2000 (that is, no more a state church), although it remains a "people's church" for the entire country ("rikstäckande"). This can be compared to the Roman Catholic section "Jurisdictions that give constitutional privileges to Roman Catholicism without establishing it as the state religion". I think a similar distinction can be made for the Lutheran churches in the Nordic countries. --— Erik Jr. 13:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not in Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the Faeroe Islands, or Greenland. The reason is that the way each of those entities constitutionally defines the word folkekirke or equivalent is as the 'National Church' of those countries or territories and not simply as the people's church. It is debatable whether the Church of Sweden is truly independent of the state for various reasons, but the link is weakened enough to remove it from the map. Also, the map lists countries that give strong state privilege to the Roman Catholic Church as the state religion of that country (Argentina, Liechtenstein, and others). Note that 'state church' or 'state religion' do not mean the same thing as state-controlled religion. That is the case, legally, for the Church of England but not of other national churches. IACOBVS (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The terminology is somewhat confusing from a Scandinavian perspective, lost in translation perhaps. For instance the term "established church" does not make any sense to me. When we (in Norway at least) talk about "state" we mean "government", so "state church" in practice meant "the government's church and the public religion of the country". The Lutheran churches of Scandinavia has particular history. The Reformation implied that the King (i.e., the state) seized the church as religion and organization with all worldly possessions. The King became archbishop and the cabinet of ministers (the King's council) was the church's governing body. Affiliation with the church through baptism was in practice mandatory. So the church became a branch of the central government, like the military and the treasury. The final step in secularization happened in 2012 when the church became self-governed (similarly in 2000 in Sweden). Some privileges are retained in the Church of Norway, notably funding of parishes. Perhaps the term state is the source of confusion. In Norway and Sweden, "state" means "government controlled" or "part of the government apparatus". --— Erik Jr. 13:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the history and the erastian nature of the Scandinavian reformation where the king (the state) became summus episcopus of the church. The same thing happened in the princely states of Germany. However, the Scandinavian churches retained bishops in historic succession (except Denmark where the succession was not strictly maintained). Gradually, this evolved away from state control to the current norms whre the churches were led by its bishops. I understand that the word 'state' is tricky and can be lost in translation. However, the issue here is not about a state-controlled church, but rather an establishment of a national (or state) religion. The situation in most of Scandinavia is one where the state has declared a certain church to be the national (folke) church and it gives that church very definite advantages. Even Finland gives the Lutheran and Orthodox churches certain privileges, although they fall short of those churches being deemed 'national' or 'established.' However, in Norway, the current constitution makes it very clear that the Church of Norway remains the official religion of the state, even if the state no longer exerts direct control over its operations. This may change, but that would mean Norway, Denmark, Iceland etc would have to change their constitutions and remove the folkekirke clauses from it. Also, it seems impossible that the state would pay the salaries of clergy as civil servants and this be somehow deemed to not be an establishment of a national religion, as is the case of Norway.IACOBVS (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC) `
It is true that the Church of Norway still has some advantages even after the 2012 constitutional amendment. The constitution now declares that the Church of Norway remains the "people's church" ("folkekirke"). This is a political compromise and it is not at all clear what it means. But the lutheranism is no longer the public religion in Norway or the official religion of the state, this clause was explicitly removed in 2012. I think the situation in Sweden is similar, although I am not sure if clergy there are civil servants. The Norwegian constitution also states that the Church of Norway and other religious communities should be supported (i.e., funded) by the government on equal terms. The historical context is important to understand the situation in Scandinavia: Church and Government has been one for 500 years, and the 2012 changes in Norway (2000 in Sweden) was actually a culmination of a gradual process of separation. The next step (soon I think) is to create the Church of Norway as an independent body in legal terms (local parishes and church buildings have been independent for at least 100 years). Norway and Sweden has a tradition of careful reforms. Formally it may seem that Norway, Sweden and Denmark are not secular societies, while USA is secular. In reality, this countries are highly secular, much more than the US for instance. In Sweden about 15 % attends mass on "holy days" such as Christmas, while about 20 % Norwegians. About 2 % av Norwegians goes to church every Sunday, about 10 % at least once month. Etc — Erik Jr. 13:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Original research and/or editoralizing in the lead?

This edit caught my eye -- particularly the insertion of the word necessarily. That struck me as possibly an expression of editorial opinion by an individual editor (see WP:EDITORIAL).

Digging back a bit, I found a significant unsupported insertion into the lead in this edit (@GregZak:), which included "... though unlike Russian revolution of the same decade, it did not made the country atheistic."

WP:LEAD says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Looking at the article body, I see that this portion of the insertion which I requote here does not look like an overview and does not summarize content about the Russian revolution from the article body.

I think that the lead needs a review, keeping WP:LEAD#Citations and WP:OR in mind. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

If you quote the sentence correctly, then the grammar is very poor as well. "... though unlike Russian revolution of the same decade, it did not made the country atheistic." It should read "though unlike the Russian Revolution of the same decade, it did not make the country atheistic". Dimadick (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Norway and Sweden

After the bill passed this summer the situations in Norway and Sweden are very similar. The Church of Norway will now be incorporated as an independent legal entity, clergy will no longer be civile servants. The current constitution says:

  • § 16: Alle innbyggere i riket har fri religionsutøvelse. Den norske kirke, en evangelisk-luthersk kirke, forblir Norges folkekirke og understøttes som sådan av staten. Nærmere bestemmelser om Kirkens ordning fastsettes ved Lov. Alle tros- og livssynssamfunn skal understøttes på lik linje.
  • Verbatim translation: All citizens of the kingdom has freedom of religion. The church of Norway, an evangelical-lutheran church, remains the people's church and is as such suppported by the state. All religions shall be supported on equal terms.

The map should accordingly be adjusted to show the same for all Scandinavia --— Erik Jr. 11:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thailand

Buddhism's not the national religion of Thailand. Thailand has no national religion. (ศาสนาพุทธไม่ใช่ศาสนาประจำชาติของประเทศไทย ประเทศไทยไม่มีศาสนาประจำชาติ) Lephill (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The article states as follows:
... the 2007 Thai constitution, recognises Buddhism as "the religion of Thai tradition with the most adherents", however, it is not formally identified as a state religion. It requires the government to "patronize and protect Buddhism and other religions".
This seems to explain the special status of Buddhism in Thailand in detail. YBG (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

State Shinto

Why is State Shinto not added as the former State religion of Japan? tahc chat 17:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Nordic countries

Denmark, Norway and Sweden have during the last 10-15 years amended their constitutions such that Lutheran churches are now separated from the state, after 500 years of unity. Lutheranism is no longer the public religion and the church is no longer a branch of the government. --— Erik Jr. 12:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The details are a bit more complicated than that (e.g., Article 4 in Part i of the Danish constitution does say, "The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State.", with some detail about that added in Part VII there), and the question is how much of that detail ought to be covered in this article. Perhaps a note something like See also: Constitution of Denmark ought to be added to the info on Denmark in this article and similar notes and wikilinks to Constitution of Sweden and the Constitution of Norway articles for the other countries. Also, re "10-15 years", see WP:DATED. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Article 16 in Norway's constitution: "Den norske kirke, en evangelisk-luthersk kirke, forblir Norges folkekirke og understøttes som sådan av staten. ... Alle tros- og livssynssamfunn skal understøttes på lik linje." Translated: "The church of Norway, an evangelical-lutheran church, remains the people's church and is as such supported by the state. ... All religions shall be supported on equal terms." Lutheranism was from 1536 to 2012 the public religion in Norway. This is no longer the case. Priests are no longer civil servants. This is in fact a small revolution that the church is separated from the government, it has been a long and (for some) a painful process. While the church of Norway by tradition and size has a special status is clear, but in Norway it is widely agreed that there is no more a state religion in the country. --— Erik Jr. 20:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The lead sentence of this article defines the term State religion for purposes of this article. That definition currently reads:

A state religion (also called an established religion, state church, established church, or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.

As I read your translation of Article 16 of Norway's constitution above and the translation here, which reads:

All inhabitants of the realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion. The Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, will remain the Established Church of Norway and will as such be supported by the State. Detailed provisions as to its system will be laid down by law. All religious and belief communities should be supported on equal terms.

the Church of Norway falls within this article's definition of the term State religion in Norway. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, this a bit odd. One translation uses "established church" (a concept that does not make any sense in Norwegian), while the original actually says "people's church" ("folkekirke", "folk" means "people" or "popular"). The lead of the present article is quite vague "officially endorsed by the state". In Norway, Sweden and Denmark the previous state churches have gone through a process of disestablishment. The church and the state was one for 500 years, now the separation is definite. It is puzzling to see that these profound changes are not reflected in the article. The term "folkekirke" ("people's church") is intentionally vague and was added as a political compromise to satisfy the traditionalists and the christian party, it does not have any practical significance. The original 1814 constitution stated "Den evangelisk-lutherske Religion forbliver Statens offentlige Religion." ("Lutheranism is the public religion of the state"), jews, jesuits and monks were at the same time banned from the land. The ban on jews and monks was removed after some years, then in 2012 the words "public religion" was finally removed from the constitution. There is no more a public (or state) religion in Norway. --— Erik Jr. 09:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The church itself said in 2012: Den norske kirke kan derfor ikke lenger betegnes «statskirken». ("The church of Norway can no longer be labeled the 'state church'.") --— Erik Jr. 10:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This article currently has an empty Notes section. I suggest that for countries where the simplistic definition of State religion in the lead sentence of the article isn't up to a complex situation such as this, those countries be classified according to whatever the situation is, with an explanatory footnote being placed in the Notes section using the {{efn}} and {{notelist}} templates. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a good idea. The Gjønnes-commission of 2006 (also known as the State/Church commission) pointed out that there is not one single aspect that defines "state church", but several aspects that jointly characterizes a situation with state church, including

  1. If there is public religion
  2. If clergy is appointed by the government
  3. If doctrine is matter for the government
  4. If the church is governed by state legislation
  5. If the church is publicly funded
  6. If the church is an independent legal entity ("incorporated") or branch of the government apparatus

In Norway, only # 5 remains, and to some degree # 4, but # 4 will change as a consequence of # 6. --— Erik Jr. 15:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Isle of Man and other British Territories

As far as I know the Church of England is the established church in the Isle of Man as well as England and the Bishop of Sodor and Man is a member of the upper house of the Tynwald. I would assume a similar thing exists in the Channel Islands but I am not sure. Should dependent self governing territories be included as well as I know many of them will have their own state religions even if the sovereign state they are associated with doesn't have a state religion. C. 22468 Talk to me 20:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thailand

Buddhism is not the national religion of Thailand. Because the supreme law of the country, such as the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand. Not stated in writing.

So it does not matter "Buddhism is the national religion of Thailand.". And also allows them to have freedom of religion as well. The freedoms outlined in the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand BE 2550, Section 37.

Please remove the yellow color from Thailand.

A person shall enjoy full liberty to profess a religion, a religious denomination or creed, and observe religious precepts or commandments or exercise a form of worship in accordance with his belief; provided that it is not contrary to his civic duties, public order or good morals.

In exercising the liberty referred to in paragraph one, a person shall be protected from any act of the State, which is derogatory to his rights or detrimental to his due benefits on the grounds of professing a religion, a religious denomination or creed or observing religious precepts or commandments or exercising a form of worship in accordance with his different belief from that of others.

— Section 37, Part 3 Rights and Liberties of an Individual, Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand B.E. 2550 (2007)

Lephill (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Norway Revisited

In spite of the citation from the Christian Post that alleges to the contrary, the Church of Norway is still the state church. I know some editors want Norway off the map, but the Norwegian Government has stated (over and over) that it is still the established church and it remains so in the Constitution. Clergy are still state employees as well. Maybe someday it will be disestablished as it was in Sweden (although there it is still semi-established as a national church), but not yet. However, I am no longer editing this page and this issue has come up far too many times. --IACOBVS (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

As of January 1, 2017, clergy are no longer state employees and the church of Norway from the same date became a independent legal entity. This was the final step in separating church and state. The situation in Norway is now virtually identical to Sweden. --— Erik Jr. 18:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it is all very clear and within Norway everybody understands that the state church is no more after 500 years. Prime minister Solberg: "I'm pleased that we no longer have a stat church (March 2017)2. "Last day of state church" (the christian news paper Dagen]. [aftenposten.no/meninger/sid/Religion-bor-ikke-pavirke-kalenderen-var-609016b.html Last year of state church] (Aftenposten). --— Erik Jr. 18:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I concede on state employees. However, has the Constitution of Norway been changed? The Storting's official English translation of Article 16 reads: Article 16: All inhabitants of the realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion. The Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, will remain the Established Church of Norway and will as such be supported by the State. Detailed provisions as to its system will be laid down by law. All religious and belief communities should be supported on equal terms. Cf: https://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/About-the-Storting/The-Constitution/. The Norwegian original reads: Alle innbyggere i riket har fri religionsutøvelse. Den norske kirke, en evangelisk-luthersk kirke, forblir Norges folkekirke og understøttes som sådan av staten. Nærmere bestemmelser om Kirkens ordning fastsettes ved Lov. Alle tros- og livssynssamfunn skal understøttes på lik linje.Cf. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1814-05-17. If my information is correct, Article 16 has not been repealed. Even if the Church of Norway is independent operationally and even if it has separate legal existence, the Constitution states it is the Established Church supported by the State. It would seem that Norway needs to repeal or amend Article 16 in order for the C of N to be disestablished. The Constitution of Sweden no longer has any language implying that the Church of Sweden is an established church or that it receives special support from the State. It does not even mention the word Lutheran. Norway has not take this step yet. If I am wrong, please point me to the revised Constitution. Otherwise, Norway should be returned to the map like Denmark. IACOBVS (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
User:IACOBVS is correct - the constitution clearly states that the Church of Norway is the state religion. I hate to say it but it seems that one editor has been doing a lot of POV pushing to remove this fact from the article and elsewhere, evening driving off constructive editors like User:Per Weo from the collaboration. Eliko007 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Eliko and IACOBVS: Church of Norway was explicitly abolished as the state religion in 2012, Norway does not have an official religion, there is no doubt about that. "Established" is an odd and misleading translation of "folkekirke» («people’s church»). I think it is misleading to focus on a vague phrase in Article 16, the phrase was designed to reach a broad political compromise and has no significance, merely lip service to some political fractions. There has been a fundamental change in the relation between state and church, this vague phrase in Article 16 has at best symbolic significance and on NO WP the consensus was to remove the label "state church". After 1 Januar "Detailed provisions as to its system will be laid down by law." has no significance as the church is independent. The church of Norway is no longer an organ of the state. Article 16 even states that all religious communities shall be supported equally. This issue was widely discussed on NO WP no:Diskusjon:Den norske kirke (please run a translation), where also Per Weo participated, and it is not clear what is really POV in this case. Because of a long history (and a large number of church buildings that are national heritage) and the majority of population belonging to the church, it is obvious that the Church of Norway has a special role and a “national character” - similar to the catholic church in Italy. But again, it is clear that Norway has no official religion and the church of Norway is separated from the state. --— Erik Jr. 19:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand that the consensus among most Norwegians may be that the State Church is de facto disestablished, but de jure it remains established. If you have a constitution that says specifically that the C of N is the "people's church and as such will be supported by the State" it's hard to see this statement as a compromise that has no meaning. The language is very strong. What is interesting about the word folkekirke is that the official English translation of the Norwegian Constitution translates this as "Established Church". Also, the word folkekirke is also used for the Church of Denmark and it remains the established church there. I don't mind one way or another if Norway fully disestablishes the C of N, but it hasn't yet achieved this constitutionally. IACOBVS (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry again, it is disestablished de jure. Nobody knows what the vague term "folkekirke" implies legally, not even law professors. Again, translating "folkekirke" as "established church" is really odd, perhaps silly. --— Erik Jr. 11:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is consensus among Norwegians that the "state church is abolished", because, as noted below and elsewhere, all parties except one of the smallest parties in parliament had explicitly decided to retain the state church and this was what parliament adopted in 2012. It was presented as "the new state church arrangement". The Norwegian Wikipedia has an article on it titled exactly that. To me, being Norwegian, it seems more like there is one Wikipedia editor who strongly disagrees with the decision of the political majority in the Norwegian Parliament and with the Church of Norway's constitutional status, and who uses Wikipedia to promote their very personal views about this topic. The editor in question has consistently refused to listen to other editors, both here on this talk page and on other talk pages. Anyway, whether Norwegians think the church should be called statskirke in Norwegian doesn't matter here, what should matter here is what "state church" is taken to mean as a descriptive term in English, as I discuss below. --Per Weo (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The Church of Norway has been the subject to some administrative reforms following a 2012 constitutional amendment, but it was agreed by all parties that this did not mean an abolition of the state church (the Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske said at the time that the amendment meant that "the state church is retained"). The Church of Norway still has a special role role in Norway, including (but not limited to)

  • its own constitutional provision stating that "the Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, remains Norway's people's church, and is supported by the State as such" (the clearest expression possible of a church being a state church)
  • a constitutional requirement for the head of state to be a member
  • its own law, the Church Law, adopted by Parliament in 1996.
  • it is funded by the state
  • all municipalities are required by law to support its activities
  • and much more

Furthermore, the new constitutional provision for it is a near-verbatim copy of the constitutional provision for the Danish state church (Church of Denmark), which states in § 4 that "The Evangelical-Lutheran Church is the Danish people's church and is supported as such by the State" and which was adopted in the mid 19th century. Note that noone disputes the fact that the Church of Denmark, with its identical constitutional status, is in fact a state church. It should be noted that the Church of Norway has never been called a "state church" in the constitution.

However, the key issue here is the meaning of the term "state church" in the English language. I refer to what I wrote about this topic in 2015 here; in short, "state church" in English is a descriptive term for, as Wikipedia defines it

"a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state [...] State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but neither does the state need be under the control of the church (as in a theocracy), nor is the state-sanctioned church necessarily under the control of the state".

It does not mean that the church must be part of the civil service or anything like that, or that the state must appoint the clergy. Neither does it mean that the expression "state church" must be used in the country in question. A constitutional provision giving one particular church a special endorsement as the country's "people's church" and a constitutional requirement for the head of state to be a member, as is the case in Norway, are alone more than enough for it be considered a state church. Many state churches aren't/weren't even mentioned in constitutions at all. The Church of Norway's ties to the state are even stronger than just that.

There is no doubt about the fact that the Church of Norway is the state church of Norway, as the term state church is understood in the English language. Whether it is referred to as a statskirke in Norwegian (which must be seen a purely descriptive term, and not something to be found in the constitution etc.) doesn't really matter for the English Wikipedia article. --Per Weo (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I also find it curious that the editor who is opposed to the Church of Norway first claimed it was deprived of its status as state church in 2012 (even though the Parliament had decided the exact opposite), and now in 2017, it has once again allegedly been deprived of its status as state church. Is this at least an admission that that all previous edits claiming it ceased to be a state church in 2012 were wrong and disruptive POV pushing?

In fact, each time some some editor here comes along and claims that "the state church has been abolished" it is really based on his own imaginative interpretation of some smaller administrative change that has nothing to do with "abolishing the state church" as we understand the term in English. What happened most recently was that the clergy ceased to be part of the civil service, but having the clergy as part of the civil service is quite extreme even for a state church and certainly not the norm, and whether the clergy is part of the civil service doesn't really matter for whether it should descriptively be called a state church in English. Also, there are many other de facto government employees in Norway who are not part of the civil service, for example employees of wholly government-owned limited companies and government-established foundations and so on. The main thing is the special constitutional and factual role a church occupies as state church, not how it is organised. --Per Weo (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Per Weo, I could not have said it better myself. As I am not Norwegian, this is not surprising. However, as you note, there has been an editor that is adamant that the Norwegian state has totally disestablished the Church of Norway. Your points of fact (and mine) don't seem to matter. As you note, a self-governing church where the state does not select and appoint bishops and priests does not mean it has ceased being established. Also, it makes no difference if the clergy are civil servants or not. In the Church of England, which is indisputably a state church, the clergy are not part of the civil service and never have been. In some ways, the Church of Norway is more established that the Church of England because the C of E is not funded directly by the state and English municipalities are under no obligation to support its activities. I would like to see Norway returned on the map as having a state church. IACOBVS (talk) 03:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the Church of Norway remains one of the most stringent state churches, at least in any western country, and certainly with much stronger ties to the state than the Church of England. I think the problem with the Norwegian editor in question is that he bases all his edits on his own extremely narrow understanding of the corresponding term in Norwegian, while he fails to understand that "state church(/religion/etc)" in English is a broad descriptive term that encompasses much more than the rather extreme version of a state church that Norway had in the past where any priest from the rank of "residing chaplain" (the rank below parish priest) and above was a civil servant appointed by the King-in-Council (as was the case until 1997, then only for bishops and provosts until the recent reforms), and that a church with moderately loosened ties/modernized relations to the state including some autonomy in religious matters (I write "some" because the Constitution specifically determines that the Church is Evangelical-Lutheran, so it's not like it could suddenly become Anglican or Reformed) and the right to hire their own staff instead of relying on appointments by the King-in-Council, a largely ceremonial procedure (the universities received this right over 25 years ago, but noone claimed they ceased to be state universities for that reason) is still well within the definition of the term in the English language. I have restored the map with Norway included based on this discussion. --Per Weo (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the arguments above is that they are also based on intepretations and inferences. Per Weo claims that the key is "the special constitutional and factual role a church occupies as state church, not how it is organised". This is an analysis (hence OR). Per Weo also claims that the 2017 creation of the church as an independent legal entity is a minor administrative change. It is true that there has been a series of reforms that relaxed the ties between church and state. In fact that process began after the 1845 when the catholic church was permitted for the first time since 1537. But the factual role of an independent church became a legal reality with the 2012 constitutional amendenment and the 2017 incorporation. These are not minor administrative changes but fundamental changes, and the organization of the church clearly reflects its factual role in society. Clearly, the state of Norway has no church and the kingdom of Norway has no official religion, there is wide agreement about this within Norway. After all the article is called "state religion", and Norway has no state religion. If Per Weo believes that "state church" has substantially different meaning in the English language and that Norway has a state church according to this notion, then this claim can not be supported by inferences from the facts (that would be OR and not permitted). The claim must be supported by independent, preferrably scholarly, sources. Per Weo's claim that it is one of the "most stringent state churches" is Per Weo's own particular interpretation (i.e., original research), and does not belong in WP. Professor Eivind Smith recently pointed out that the term "people's church" ("folkekirke") is vague and nobody really knows what it means. --— Erik Jr. 11:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Pointing out how the term "state church (or religion)" is used in English has nothing to do with "analysis" or "OR", but with the meaning of the term in the English language. Secondly, the Church of Norway becoming a legal entity is an entirely unexceptional development; after all there are literally thousands of public (state, municipal etc.) bodies which already have this status of a separate legal entity. It has no bearing on whether a church should be called a state church. Thirdly, I find it quite dubious whether the Church of Norway can be described as an "independent church" when it's an official church whose most fundamental beliefs (i.e. adherence to Evangelical-Lutheran Christianity) are determined by the Constitution; but even if it has some "independence" in its internal organisation and day-to-day matters, this doesn't mean it's not a state church as we use the term descriptively in English. Even a fully independent church that is organisationally completely separate from the state with full doctrinal independence (which is not the case in Norway) can be a state church – as we use the term in English – if it's endorsed by the state and functions as the country's main/established church (as is clearly the case in Norway). It isn't even necessary for the church to be mentioned in the constitution to be considered descriptively as a state church as we use the term in English.
You write "Clearly, the state of Norway has no church". This is not so clear to me. A state that has an official people's church mentioned in the Constitution (with a constitutional requirement for the head of state to be a member), of which a large majority of the population are members, clearly has a church. This is also clear from all the other legislation relating to the Church, the requirement for the municipalities to support the church's activities, and so on and so forth. A large political majority explicitly decided to "retain the state church" as the responsible Minister (for Church Affairs) Trond Giske said when he presented the constitutional amendment in question.
Clearly, it's high time that User:Erik den yngre accepts the fact that this is the English language Wikipedia, and that we base our articles on accepted usage in English, and that he starts to listen to other editors. So far not a single editor here or on Talk:Church of Norway have agreed with you, and there is clearly consensus on this talk page that Norway has a state church, as we use the term in English. --Per Weo (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I must concur with Per Weo in full. --IACOBVS (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Re. OR: If you deduce from a combination of facts (such as Article 16 in the constitution) that Norway has a state church that is a clear case of OR per synthesis, quote: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. (etc)" So whatever the meaning of "state church" in the English language, WP editors can not reach a conclusion not stated in reliable sources. If the concept of "state church" is indeed fundamentally different in Norwegian and English, then you must provide reliable (scholarly) English language sources that show how this applies to the current situation in Norway. Until the label "state church" for the church of Norway remains an opinion shared by some WP users.
Per Weo keeps quoting Trond Giske, but again that was his (Giske's) opinion, other key actors had other opinions - professor Smith stated that the term "people's church" (folkekirke) is unclear. So based on Smith's scholarly assessment, it is controversial to say that "people's church" means "state church". And Giske's statement was in relation to the 2012 amendment, since that time further fundamental reforms have been implemented (and more are in the pipeline). — Erik Jr. 11:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Per Weo claims that the church of Norway does not enjoy doctrinal independence because the constitution mentions that it is Lutheran. I would say that the Church of Norway is as independent as the Catholic Church with regard to doctrine. There is no government interference in doctrine and liturgy. Previously doctrine and liturgy was largely determined by the parliament or cabinet. — Erik Jr. 15:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Erik Jr. I do not agree that this is OR. The Constitution of Norway as officially published in English by the Norwegian Parliament translates "people's church" (folkekirke) as "Established Church" - and this is the 2016 edition. If you disagree with this, then take it up with your representative and demand it be changed, but this is an official government source. Noting that the Danish Constitution uses the same exact word for its state church is not WP:SYNTH. It is pointing out that the wording in the two Nordic constitutions is almost identical for their respective Lutheran churches. Since Dano-Norwegian in the forms of Danish and Norwegian Bokmål are almost identical languages as far as their written form, this is also not WP:SYNTH because it is not combining material to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly stated in reliable sources. The website that lists the English translation of Article 16 of the Norwegian Constitution as published by Stortinget is a reliable source.[2] Also, it does not matter if a state church operates autonomously in doctrine and liturgy. Those states that name the Roman Catholic Church as the state church do not (and indeed cannot) interfere with its liturgy and doctrine which emanates from Rome. IACOBVS (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, another reliable source, Eivind Smith, professor of public law and comparative constitutional law, says "nobody knows what people's church means". So the only non-OR evidence presented is the Stortinget translation of "folkekirke" ("people's church") as "established church". You can of course disagree with professor Smith, but that does not change anything within WP. And again I must remind you that the term "public" ("official") religion was explicitly removed from the constitution. When reliable sources diverge, there is no definite conclusion and the case remains open or disputed. — Erik Jr. 09:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that you simply wait for the Government to eliminate the Church of Norway from the constitution and elsewhere in public law (which I assume you think is inevitable) and then you can claim that it is indeed disestablished and delete its presence on the map. But until then, it should remain. IACOBVS (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The claim that "nobody knows what people's church means" is somewhat spurious and possibly taken out of context. The context here is that both the term and the entire constitutional provision are lifted verbatim from the Danish constitution and the name of the Danish state church. Clearly, this was not done by accident. In this context, it is abundantly clear that it means a state church similar to the one in Denmark (the fact that Denmark and Norway used to be one country for practical purposes, and their churches one church for practical purposes for several centuries, makes this even clearer, so Denmark isn't some random country that Norway just happened to borrow a constitutional provision from, but the one country in the world most intimately connected to and similar to Norway, both in general and in regard to religion and the organisation and history of their churches).

But even if we ignore that whole context (which would be exceedingly ignorant and ahistorical), having one particular church designated as the country's people's church in the country's constitution is a clear expression of that church being the country's state church, as we understand that term in English. Of course, state church can mean many things in terms of how the church is organised, the exact specifics of its relations to the state (which tend to evolve over time) etc. etc., so it's possible that Mr. Smith meant something along those lines, but that doesn't change the fact that a people's church, as the term is used in Denmark and Norway, is a state church, as we understand the term state church in English. --Per Weo (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

"as we understand" ... please don't include me in that "we". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"as we understand" = as the term is defined in this very article (as discussed above), and in all third party sources in English I've seen. Noone mentioned you anywhere. --Per Weo (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for that flip drive-by comment. The thought behind that was that it seems to me that this should be resolved IAW WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I have removed the dispute template from the Lutheranism section because the section is properly sourced. I realise that there is a dispute on the degree to which the Church of Norway is or is not a state church, however the Constitution of Norway, as officially translated into English by the Norwegian Parliament, lists the C of N as the "Established Church". It would be difficult to interpret this source as unreliable or to insist that this is somehow an incorrect translation by the said Parliament. IACOBVS (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Until a scholarly source in the English language discusses the issue the only basis (for the claim that the Church of Norway is a state church) is the translation from Stortinget and the issue remains disputed. The Church of Norway is already eliminated from public law, there is only the vague mention in Article 16. Again, it is strange to read that Norway has a public/official religion when in fact it was explicitly removed from the constitution in 2012. The paragraph on Norway clearly includes contradicting facts. I added disputed tag for Norway only. For the cathloic church there is a list of countries "Jurisdictions that give various degrees of recognition in their constitutions.", this could be an appropriate label for Norway. — Erik Jr. 12:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it is rather unlikely that a scholarly article will be written on the status of the Church of Norway in English. I still disagree that the language used by Stortinget in Article 16 is vague. Even if translated as "the Norwegian people's church", it then reads that this church "will as such be supported by the State" -- still rather strong language (as it implies that other churches are not the Norwegian people's church), even if other religious communities are supported "on equal terms". However, it appears you are adamant on this issue and will not be dissuaded. IACOBVS (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The claim that the Church of Norway is "eliminated from public law" is patently untrue. It's specifically mentioned in the Constitution for Christ's sake (pun intended) and there are a whole bunch of statutes, including one named the Church Law, dealing with its (unique) status in public law. No other religious communities have this status in Norway; the Church of Norway has a status in public law that is very different from other religious communities (the Catholic Church, independent Protestant churches, Muslim and Jewish communities etc.) which are merely subjects of private law. By "eliminated from public law" you apparently have in mind the fact that it is now a separate legal entity, just like, for example, the University of Oslo and thousands of other state and municipal entities. That doesn't "eliminate [it] from public law" in any way whatsoever.
And no, its status as a state church wasn't "explicitly removed from the constitution in 2012," it was explicitly retained in the constitution – the responsible government minister (for church affairs) even stated this directly when proposing this particular amendment that you attach such great importance to, as did other representatives of Labour and other parties. Also, I'm curious, how can it both have been "removed from the constitution in 2012" and again have been removed from the constitution in 2017 as you now have claimed? How many times can it be removed from a constitution? (Except that it never was; it was merely reworded and the new language, borrowed from the Danish constitutional provision for the Danish state church, actually only reinforced its status as a state church and was at least as strong as the original language in designating it as a state church – a term which is a descriptive term that has never been found in the constitution).
Now I think it's time for you to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Per Weo (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Armenia is not Eastern Orthodox but Oriental Orthodox

The more detailed map lists Armenia as Eastern Orthodox. There's a critical difference - they are non-Chalcedonian, and thus "Oriental Orthodox". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harsimaja (talk • contribs) 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Islam and Sunni Islam

Many of the countries which have been put under the category of "Sunni Islam" have, upon further investigation, been discovered to have established only "Islam" as the state religion and not a particular denomination thereof. The "More Detailed" image reflects the mistaken version of the page, so could someone please revise that image to more accurately reflect the updated page? Thank you. Editor10! August 10, 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this bit needs to be cleared up, for example, Saudi Arabia is under Islam not Sunni Islam when it actually accepts Sunni Islam as the state religion, I'm going to change that one and I think someones needs to carefully look at the others. Maybe divide them all into Sunni, Shia or both.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on State religion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Church of Norway

There is some disagreement on how to accurately describe the Church of Norway. There is no doubt that The Church of Norway, a Lutheran Church was originally a full-fledged state religion, an official religion of the state, to which citizens were required to belong, but some religious freedom was guaranteed by the Constitution of Eidsvoll in 1814 – and in the last fifteen years or so much has happened. For one the church has achieved a formal, organisational independence of the state – the clergy are appointed by the church itself and no longer formally by the state, and no longer does the government have ultimate say over the teachings and rituals of the church. But the church remains enshrined in the constitution, even if the wording has been substantially changed.

In 2012 the constitution was amended to remove the phrase "the Evangelical-Lutheran religion remains the public religion of the State", and replace it with another phrasing stating the church to be "Norges folkekirke". The phrase here literally means "Norway's people's church", and there are various interpretations of what exactly that means, but the official translation of the constitution found at lovdata.no translates the amended paragraph like this:

Article 16 All inhabitants of the realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion. The Church of Norway, an Evangelical-Lutheran church, will remain the Established Church of Norway and will as such be supported by the State. Detailed provisions as to its system will be laid down by law. All religious and belief communities should be supported on equal terms.

The question is how to properly describe the Church of Norway. It is of course important that the constitution no longer speaks of a "public religion of the State", but it remains of import that the constitution still refers to the church as "the Established Church of Norway" ("Norges folkekirke"). This, incidentally, is almost exactly the same wording used in the Constitution of Denmark. It is clear that the connection between the Church of Norway and the Norwegian state is no longer what it was, but it should also be clear that this situation is something less than a complete separation of church and state (in which case the state does preferentially support any particular religion, much privilege it in its constitution). For this reason I think it's fair to say that the Norwegian church has not been disestablished, even if the bonds have been loosened. —Pinnerup (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed extensively elsewhere. It is true that Article 16 uses the phrase "established church", a curious translation of "folkekirke". Nobody really knows what "folkekirke" means, please see sources in article, but the phrase was introduced in constitution as a political compromise, perceived mostly as a symbolic gesture. There is no doubt that Norway does no longer have a public ("official") religion, after long discussion this point was deliberatly removed in 2012, so it is quite misleading if the article gives the impression that Norway has a public religion. For Norway it was a big step after 1000 years (500 years where state/government and church was more or less the same thing). I 2017 the church became a independent legal entity, that is, clergy are no longer civil servants. Norway has a tradition of careful, well-planned reforms, and this process of "disestablishing" has been going for some 40 years, and in 2017 the ties to the government were finally broken. Some minor points remain, but clearly Norway does not have a state religion, no more than Italy or Spain, even if the lutheran church is the dominant just like the catholic church in Italy and Spain. — Erik Jr. 13:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead of making our conclusions, we can perhaps precisely describe the facts and then live it to the reader. See for instance this statement by the ministry of culture: "1. januar 2017 etableres et tydelig skille mellom stat og kirke i Norge. I praksis betyr dette større selvstendighet for kirken, samtidig som folkekirken består. - Når vi nå lager et tydelig skille mellom staten og Den norske kirke, handler det selvsagt ikke om å si farvel til eller ta avstand fra historie og tradisjoner, sier kulturminister Linda Hofstad Helleland. - Det er heller ikke folks forhold til kirken som skal endres, men statens forhold til kirken. Arven og historien blir med oss inn i en ny tid." Translated: "As of 1 January 2017 there is a clear line separating state and church. (...) The heritage and the history we can not delete." So the minister explains the meaning of "folkekirke", something similar to the catholic church in Italy. --— Erik Jr. 14:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The Map Needs an Update

Norway doesn't have a state religion anymore, but the map says otherwise. Does anyone know how to update the map to fix this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not a Sandwich (talk • contribs) 23:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an old issue. Some editors argue that Norway does have a public religion, perhaps that is the reason the map is not updated. --— Erik Jr. 23:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Constitution of Norway" (PDF). Stortinget. Norwegian Parliament. Retrieved 31 October 2015.
  2. ^ "Norwegian Constitution" (PDF). Stortinget. Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament). Retrieved 5 May 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:State_religion/Archive_3&oldid=1137203506"