Talk:State religion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Notes regarding and support for assertions made visually in a map image

Today, I recalled some discussions I've had similar to this one regarding this article, and had an idea. That led to this edit, which is somewhat of an experiment. I'm thinking of suggesting something like this at Wikipedia Talk:Verifiability, and would appreciate comments. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Norway on the map image

I've inserted a section heading, separating the following from the section above and placing it in a separate section for further discussion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Norway does not have a state religion (since 2012/2017). — Erik Jr. 19:13, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not really on-topic for this talk page section. It seems to challenge the interpretation of the supporting source cited in support of the coloring of Norway on the map image page. The source cited there is the CIA Factbook entry for Norway ([1]), which says "Church of Norway (Evangelical Lutheran - official) 70.6%, ..." under "Religions". That is discussed a bit in the Lutheranism section of the article, and the Disestablished column of the table in the Established churches and former state churches section has yet more information about that, citing several other sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is wrong, so the map is also wrong. The idea that Norway has a state religion is maintained only on Wikipedia. Major constitutional changes were done in 2012 and 2017. https://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/i-dag-avvikles-statskirken/63336007 --— Erik Jr. 09:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, I was more concerned above with the mechanics of supporting assertions made nontextually by the map. I see that this source has information bout this. I'll add info from there supported by a cite of that source to this article. I don't normally maintain maps, but I'll take a look at that too. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't have the tools handy to edit the map image, and I'm pretty rusty at that sort of thing. Could some other editor take a look at this? As far as I can tell, the Norway mainland and the islands north of that (Svalbard) need to change from blue to grey, the note on the image descriptor page for Norway should be modified to reflect the change and a cite of this source should be added there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

"Traditional" religions in Russia and elsewhere

This law established four "traditional" religions in Russia, which is I guess a step below state religion: Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations. There are probably similar laws in other countries that are not yet documented here.--Pharos (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sweden (re January 15, 2020 revert)

I've reverted this edit. In that edit, I saw the following problems:

• There is a cite reading "The Act of Succession". The Riksdag. Retrieved 2014-10-24. that does not appear to support the assertion for which it is cited.
• There is ref named "Nergelius:42-44" that produces a cite I can't figure out that has an internal link that appears not to work.
• There is a cite reading "Svenska kyrkan i siffror". Church of Sweden (Svenska kyrkan). that does not appear to support the assertion for which it is cited.
• There is a cite reading "SFS 1998:1591", Riksdagen that does not appear to support the assertion for which it is cited.

Perhaps this is my problem and I just haven't been able to make the connection between the article assertions and the support offered by the cited sources. If that's the case, I'm thinking that this ought to be worded and constructed more clearly. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nations which recognize Atheism as their official religion:

There is no reference under France to the special status of French Guiana where the Catholic Church (please avoid the term 'catholicism') is the official religion or to the more important exception constituted by the two Alsace departements and that of Moselle where 4 religious bodies hold official status. Belgium similarly accords official status to 6 religious bodies.

• China

Roadrunner 20:27, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In order for a Territory to become a State, that Territory must accept the United States Constitution as "ruling law of the land." The State must, then, create, and pass, it's own Constitution in order to govern itself, but that law must always be subservient to the United States Constitution. No law passed by a State may supercede that body of law. Therefore, after 1789, no state could establish a State Church. Davjohn 03:52, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is just wrong. The First Amendment says *Congress* shall pass no law, and there are a series of pre-Civil War Supreme Court decisions that explicitly limited the first amendment rule on establishment to Federal actions. Things changed with the 14th amendment.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/youth/sia/churchstate/colonial.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner (talk • contribs) 20:27, 2 April 2004 (UTC)

Civic Religions

I have created a page on Civic religions (which are associated with dictatorships, and are not religions in the sense of Christianity or Islam). Please look at it, and help make improvements, if you would, it is not yet finished, but I do not know where else to drum up interest than here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naryathegreat (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 July 2004 (UTC)

Malaysia is Sunni

Government officials have openly declared that Shiite Islam is not allowed to be preached to Malaysians. Until I left Malaysia, I had thought there was only one denomination of Islam because the only denomination allowed to be preaeched here is Sunni Islam. I changed the text entries but don't know how to change the graphical map. (I don't know how to upload the new map showing Malaysia as Sunni.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianchai (talk • contribs) 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Moldavia

I've added to the article that Moldavia recently given the Eastern Orthodox Church a title of an official and major religion of Moldavia and its peeople AndreyX109— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.167.209 (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Zambias state religion is Christianity

Zambia is officially a Christian nation according to the 1996 constitution Could someone please update the map to include the country.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AcidSnow (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

References

Judaism

Where is Israel on this map? Mcmolson (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

India

The post immediately below this was placed on my talk, moving here for discussion. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Sir, in India, hinduism is major religion. There are pro hindu laws in India such as ban on cow slaughter. Now, Israel is a secular country. Then why is Israel mentioned in Judaism section on the state religion page. If there is mention of Israel, there should also be mention of India. Anonymous Bond (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, according to this article, Israel explicitly describes itself in several of its laws as a Jewish state. As the article discusses, that is complicated by the fact that 'Jewish' can be interpreted as being an ethnic identity, or a religious one, or both, and the article discusses the implications of that. Does India describe itself explicitly as a Hindu country anywhere? My understanding is that it does not do so - it does not, therefore, have a state religion. This article is not intended to be a list of countries in which the majority of people follow a particular religion, it lists countries where a particular religion is formally established as being part of the state. In England, for example, the Church of England is established as part of the state itself, and 26 bishops even get to sit in the House of Lords (one of our branches of government) purely on the basis of their position within the church. The fact that very few people actually go to church these days, or even describe themselves as being Anglican, doesn't change the fact that England has a state religion. It's not about how many people follow a religion, it's about whether it is formally embedded in the constitutional system. Does that answer your question? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

GirthSummit In India, cow slaughter is not banned in 10 states that include,: (Manipur, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya)(these are North-eastern states) and Kerela and West Bengal.Rajendra Saradhna (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Rajendra Saradhna, I don't understand why you are telling me this. Please see WP:PING for details on how to send notifications - you shouldn't replicate another user's signature in your messages to them. Thanks GirthSummit _(blether) 19:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

State religion and Confessional state seems to cover the same scope. If they don't, someone needs to clarify what the difference is. Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Support - Article is small and of the same exact topic, support the merge. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Ytpks896 (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - A confessional state is not the same as state religion. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Typo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion#Additional_notes

The first bullet point, Bangladesh, has a typo: >> However, Islam have it' state religion.

I would fix it but I don't know what it is supposed to say...

Nevet Basker (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

India

I think the pictures of Lord Rama about which is said in the article are just to glorify the ancient culture and tradition of India only. And It has nothing to do with the special priority to the religion. Also Not only lord Rama but various figures from Buddhist(like that from Ajanta caves and other sources) and Jain Traditions, also various Indian historical figures are also portrayed. You can also refer the following site.( https://www.theheritagelab.in/constitution-india-art/ ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaMongKut (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Cow Slaughter is banned by only some states not by all and also is not banned by constitution of the country The Central Govt. of the country also don't ban it.JaMongKut (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Argentina

Article 2 of the Argentine Constitution states: The Federal Government sustains the roman apostolic catholic cult.

Doesn't that count as a state religion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.108.26.63 (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Lutheranism and Nordic Countries

There is near constant debate on this page about Lutheran churches in the Nordic countries. Those who have strong personal feelings against any establishment tend to interpret the constitution and laws are secular. However, the fact that Norway still deems its church established (albeit no longer state controlled); and that Sweden still requires its monarch to be a member of its church and has special laws only for this church; and that Finland has a special 'Church Act' for its Lutheran church still creates a privileged recognition; if not outright establishment in Norway. Unless the laws in those countries change, it is not NPOV to remove them. --IACOBVS (talk) 18:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Israel

Isn’t Israel a Jewish state Nlivataye (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Religion

The factors that contribute to the establishment of state religion 41.150.226.114 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit/Delete section on India re Hinduism

Hi, I'm from an account which doesn't have the necessary points/edits to edit a semi-protected page. I believe that this section is egregiously incorrect and requires immediate correction due to its blatant inaccuracy on on fronts:

This is the current section: "The Constitution of India, declares India to be a secular state with no state religion. However, at a same time, "the Republic of India privileges Hinduism as state sponsored religion" through constitutionally, legislatively and culturally. India is highly and deeply very religious country and nearly all Indians believe in the existence of Paramatman (God). The culture of India is mainly influenced by Hinduism/Vedic culture. The original copy of Indian constitution have the illustration of Lord Ram, Sita, and Lakshman in Part III on Fundamental Rights and Lord Rama have been considered as true guardian of people's rights and freedom. Also Article 48 of Indian constitution, expects the government to prohibit the slaughter of cows or calf (a sacred animal in Hinduism) and is illegal criminal offense in most of the Hindu-majority states of India. Indian defense force moto is largely influenced by Hindu Scriptures. The invocation to Varuna, (The Sea God) in the Vedas was adopted by Indian Navy as its emblem, with the Motto: “Sam no Varunah”, meaning: “Be auspicious unto us Oh Varuna”. The Motto: (Touch the sky with Glory) of the Indian Air Force has been taken from the eleventh chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, where the Discourse was given by Lord Krishna to Arjuna on the Kurukshetra battlefield during the Mahabharata war"

The quote regarding the republic of India "privileging" Hinduism, far from being from the constitution, as implied, is instead from a random newspage online which is explicitly an opinion piece. (citation 98 on the article) The piece cites legislation meant to prevent casteism "Allow all Hindus to enter temples" to mean that the constitution of India somehow privileges Hinduism, a baseless conclusion equivalent to assuming that the existence of Muslim personal law in India for muslims is equivalent to India being an Islamic state.

It also spuriously uses the Indian "Hindu Marriage Act", explicitly applying to the followers of Hinduism and other associated Dharmic religions (in accordance with the norms of colonial law adopted by India) to suggest, somehow, that India privileges Hinduism, inspite of this legislation merely being another piece of Indian personal law, no different from Christian and Muslim personal law used in India (as well as the Goan Napoleonic-inspired Civil Code used in the Indian state of Goa.

The rest of citation 98 talks about systemic discrimination against non-Hindu minority groups to be equivalent to rendering India a legally Hindu state, which is, again, equivalent to calling the US an "officially straight white male nation" due to the existence of systemic racism et cetera. Or hell, it can also be considered equivalent to calling India an "officially Brahmin state" due to the prevalence of casteism in Indian society, which is obviously completely false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehommedramatic (talk • contribs) 08:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The section on Hinduism in the article on state religion also says that "The original copy of Indian constitution have the illustration of Lord Ram, Sita, and Lakshman in Part III on Fundamental Rights and Lord Rama have been considered as true guardian of people's rights and freedom". This is, to put it mildly, complete bullshite. The Indian Constitution has illustrations depicting the Buddha, Jain prophet Mahavira, Muslim king Tipu Sultan, Buddhist ruler Ashoka, Sikh *guru* Gobind Singh, and many other cultural icons in Indian history. The presence of Rama and Sita in the constitution's illustrations is just another manifestation of that. It does not signify the religious character of the Indian state in any manner, and assuming so is equivalent to consider America a Muslim state because of having a statue of Muhammad in the Supreme court.

Article 48 of the Indian constitution is, verbatim, "48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle". It does not acknowledge Hinduism in any form. It is amongst the Indian "Directive Principles of State Policy", non-binding recommendations to the government on what to do, which include, amongst other things, the ban of alcohol. Just like banning alcohol (which is Haram in Islam) wouldn't make India an Islamic state, banning beef wouldn't make it a Hindu one.

The rest of the article is equally spurious and worth deletion, equivalent to proclaiming America a Christian state because of using the motto "In God We Trust" and having "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

I do hope that my more active peers on Wikipedia will address this. Thank you. Lehommedramatic (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit to not knowing enough about this topic to know what sources are reliable, but is there anything that is salvageable or that should replace the section, or should it be removed entirely?

Nuew (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it ought to be removed entirely, there's no real legal priority given to Hindus/Hinduism constitutionally -- India has, since its founding, been a secular state with the right to the freedom of religion enshrined in its founding documents. Independent India, after all, *rejected* the two-nation theory. Re removing Nepal, yeah, that's pretty reasonable too. Seems like all that's there are spurious inferences based on generic text.

"EVERYONE CAN PRACTICE THEIR CULTURAL BELIEFS!"

"oh clearly that means Hinduism"

So yeah ig imo both sections seem more or less entirely spurious and worth deletion Lehommedramatic (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're removing all of India, we probably ought to just remove the entire section on Hinduism given that in neither of the cases is Hinduism the state religion, and AFAICT no other sections include anything on as spurious a basis. WP:BOLD, I guess.

Nuew (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Alsace-Moselle: How many religions?

"The local law in Alsace-Moselle accords official status to four religions in this specific region of France: Judaism, Roman Catholicism, and Protestantism."

That only lists three religions... Vultur~enwiki (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@ 58.145.189.248 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Colonial Errors

This article is extremely careless in attributing extablished demoninations to the American colonies. No establishment ever took place in NJ, and William Penn's charter expressed prohibited an establishment in Pennsylvania.

Nor was Catholicism established anywhere in the British Empire after Mary I of England's reign. It was tolerated in Maryland and Quebec, but that is not the same thing.

Other corrections should be made as appropriate.Septentrionalis 22:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)