Broadly speaking, liberty is the ability to do as one pleases. In politics, liberty consists of the social and economic freedoms to which all community members are entitled. In philosophy, liberty involves free will as contrasted with determinism. In theology, liberty is freedom from the effects of "sin, spiritual servitude, worldly ties."Sometimes liberty is differentiated from freedom by using the word "freedom" if not to mean the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do. In this sense, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others, thus liberty entails the responsible use of freedom under the rule of law without depriving anyone else of their freedom. Freedom is more broad in that it represents a total lack of restraint or the unrestrained ability to fulfill one's desires. For example, a person can have the freedom to murder, but not have the liberty to murder, as the latter example deprives others of their right not to be harmed. Liberty can be taken away as a form of punishment.
In many countries, people can be deprived of their liberty. The word "liberty" is used in slogans, such as "life and the pursuit of happiness" or "Liberty, Fraternity". Philosophers from earliest times have considered the question of liberty. Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote: a polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed. According to Thomas Hobbes: a free man is he that in those things which by his strength and wit he is able to do is not hindered to do what he hath the will to do. John Locke rejected that definition of liberty. While not mentioning Hobbes, he attacks Sir Robert Filmer who had the same definition. According to Locke: In the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth. People are not under the will or lawmaking authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule.
In political society, liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth. People are free from the dominion of any will or legal restraint apart from that enacted by their own constituted lawmaking power according to the trust put in it. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it:'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, not to be tied by any laws.' Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain and arbitrary wills of others. John Stuart Mill, in his work, On Liberty, was the first to recognize the difference between liberty as the freedom to act and liberty as the absence of coercion.
In his book Two Concepts of Liberty, Isaiah Berlin formally framed the differences between these two perspectives as the distinction between two opposite concepts of liberty: positive liberty and negative liberty. The latter designates a negative condition in which an individual is protected from tyranny and the arbitrary exercise of authority, while the former refers to the liberty that comes from self-mastery, the freedom from inner compulsions such as weakness and fear; the modern concept of political liberty has its origins in the Greek concepts of freedom and slavery. To be free, to the Greeks, was not to have a master, to be independent from a master; that was the original Greek concept of freedom. It is linked with the concept of democracy, as Aristotle put it: "This is one note of liberty which all democrats affirm to be the principle of their state. Another is. This, they say, is the privilege of a freeman, since, on the other hand, not to live as a man likes is the mark of a slave; this is the second characteristic of democracy, whence has arisen the claim of men to be ruled by none, if possible, or, if this is impossible, to rule and be ruled in turns.
In Athens, for instance, women could not vote or hold office and were and dependent on a male relative. The populations of the Persian Empire enjoyed some degree of freedom. Citizens of all religions and ethnic groups were given the same rights and had the same freedom of religion, women had the same rights as men, slavery was abolished. All the palaces of the kings of Persia were built by paid workers in an era when slaves did such work. In the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India, citizens of all religions and ethnic groups had some rights to freedom and equality; the need for tolerance on an egalitarian basis can be found in the Edicts of Ashoka the Great, which emphasize the importance of tolerance in public policy by the government. The slaughter or capture of prisoners of war appears to have been condemned by Ashoka. Slavery appears to have been non-existent in the Maurya Empire. However, according to Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, "Ashoka's orders seem to have been resisted right from the beginning."Roman law
Liberal conservatism is a political ideology combining conservative policies with liberal stances on economic and ethical issues, or a brand of political conservatism influenced by liberalism. Liberal conservatism incorporates the classical liberal view of minimal government intervention in the economy, according to which individuals should be free to participate in the market and generate wealth without government interference. However, individuals cannot be depended on to act responsibly in other spheres of life, therefore liberal conservatives believe that a strong state is necessary to ensure law and order and social institutions are needed to nurture a sense of duty and responsibility to the nation, they support civil liberties, along with some social conservative positions. In Europe liberal conservatism is the dominant form of contemporary conservatism and centre-right politics; as both "conservatism" and "liberalism" have had different meanings over time and across countries, the term "liberal conservatism" has been used in quite different ways.
It contrasts with "aristocratic conservatism", which deems the principle of equality as something discordant with human nature and emphasizes instead the idea of natural inequality. As conservatives in democratic countries have embraced typical liberal institutions such as the rule of law, private property, the market economy and constitutional representative government, the liberal element of liberal conservatism became consensual among conservatives. In some countries, the term "liberal conservatism" came to be understood as "conservatism" in popular culture, prompting some conservatives who embraced more classical liberal values to call themselves "libertarians" instead. In the United States conservatives combine the economic individualism of classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism that emphasizes the natural inequalities between men, the irrationality of human behavior as the basis for the human drive for order and stability and the rejection of natural rights as the basis for government.
However, from a different perspective, American conservatism has exalted three tenets of Burkean conservatism, namely the diffidence toward the power of the state, the preference of liberty over equality, patriotism while rejecting the three remaining tenets, namely loyalty to traditional institutions and hierarchies, scepticism regarding progress and elitism. In the United States the term "liberal conservatism" is not used. American "modern liberalism" happens to be quite different from European liberalism and occupies the centre-left of the political spectrum, in contrast to many European countries where liberalism is more associated with the centre-right and social democracy makes up a substantial part of the centre-left; the opposite is true in Latin America, where economically liberal conservatism is labelled under the rubric of neoliberalism both in popular culture and academic discourse. For their part, in their embracement of liberal and free market principles, European liberal conservatives are distinguishable from those holding national conservative social-conservative and/or outright populist views, let alone a right-wing populist posture.
Being liberal involves stressing free market economics and the belief in individual responsibility together with the defense of civil rights and support for a limited welfare state. Compared to other centre-right political traditions, such as Christian democracy, liberal conservatives are less traditionalist and more economically liberal, favouring low taxes and minimal state intervention in the economy; some regional varieties and peculiarities can be observed: In much of central and northwestern Europe in Germanic and traditionally Protestant countries, as well as the United Kingdom and Belgium, a divide persists between liberal conservatives and liberals. In most Nordic countries, liberal conservatives, Christian democrats and liberals form distinct political families and have each their own party. In most countries where Romance languages are spoken and where Catholicism is or has been dominant, as well as in Greece, liberal conservative movements encompassing Christian democrats and liberals, have more gained traction and the terms "conservative" and "liberal" may be understood as synonymous.
At the European level, Christian democrats and most liberal conservatives are affiliated to the European People's Party, while liberals to the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party. In this context, some traditionally Christian-democratic parties have become undistinguishable from other liberal-conservative parties. On the other hand, newer liberal-conservative parties have not adopted traditional labels, but their ideologies are a mixture of conservatism, Christian democracy and liberalism. In the modern European discourse, "liberal conservatism" encompasses centre-right political outlooks that reject at least to
Freedom of religion
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice and observance. It includes the freedom to change one's religion or beliefs. Freedom of religion is considered by many people and most of the nations to be a fundamental human right. In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, does not persecute believers in other faiths. Freedom of belief is different, it allows the right to believe what a person, group or religion wishes, but it does not allow the right to practice the religion or belief and outwardly in a public manner. Freedom of religion has been used to refer to the tolerance of different theological systems of belief, while freedom of worship has been defined as freedom of individual action. Freedom from religion is a far more pressing moralistic and peaceful solution.
Each of these have existed to varying degrees. While many countries have accepted some form of religious freedom, this has often been limited in practice through punitive taxation, repressive social legislation, political disenfranchisement. Compare examples of individual freedom in Italy or the Muslim tradition of dhimmis "protected individuals" professing an tolerated non-Muslim religion. In Antiquity, a syncretic point of view allowed communities of traders to operate under their own customs; when street mobs of separate quarters clashed in a Hellenistic or Roman city, the issue was perceived to be an infringement of community rights. Cyrus the Great established the Achaemenid Empire ca. 550 BC, initiated a general policy of permitting religious freedom throughout the empire, documenting this on the Cyrus Cylinder. Some of the historical exceptions have been in regions where one of the revealed religions has been in a position of power: Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Islam. Others have been where the established order has felt threatened, as shown in the trial of Socrates in 399 BC or where the ruler has been deified, as in Rome, refusal to offer token sacrifice was similar to refusing to take an oath of allegiance.
This was the persecution of early Christian communities. Freedom of religious worship was established in the Buddhist Maurya Empire of ancient India by Ashoka the Great in the 3rd century BC, encapsulated in the Edicts of Ashoka. Greek-Jewish clashes at Cyrene in 73 AD and 117 AD and in Alexandria in 115 AD provide examples of cosmopolitan cities as scenes of tumult; the Romans tolerated most religions, including Judaism and encouraged local subjects to continue worshipping their own gods. They did not however, tolerate Christianity until it was legalised by the Roman emperor Galerius in 311; the Edict of Milan guaranteed freedom of religion in the Roman Empire until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, which outlawed all religions except Christianity. Following a period of fighting lasting around a hundred years before 620 AD which involved Arab and Jewish inhabitants of Medina, religious freedom for Muslims and pagans was declared by Muhammad in the Constitution of Medina; the Islamic Caliphate guaranteed religious freedom under the conditions that non-Muslim communities accept dhimmi status and their adult males pay the punitive jizya tax instead of the zakat paid by Muslim citizens.
Though Dhimmis were not given the same political rights as Muslims, they did enjoy equality under the laws of property and obligation. Religious pluralism existed in classical Islamic ethics and Sharia, as the religious laws and courts of other religions, including Christianity and Hinduism, were accommodated within the Islamic legal framework, as seen in the early Caliphate, Al-Andalus, Indian subcontinent, the Ottoman Millet system. In medieval Islamic societies, the qadi could not interfere in the matters of non-Muslims unless the parties voluntarily choose to be judged according to Islamic law, thus the dhimmi communities living in Islamic states had their own laws independent from the Sharia law, such as the Jews who would have their own Halakha courts. Dhimmis were allowed to operate their own courts following their own legal systems in cases that did not involve other religious groups, or capital offences or threats to public order. Non-Muslims were allowed to engage in religious practices that were forbidden by Islamic law, such as the consumption of alcohol and pork, as well as religious practices which Muslims found repugnant, such as the Zoroastrian practice of incestuous "self-marriage" where a man could marry his mother, sister or daughter.
According to the famous Islamic legal scholar Ibn Qayyim, non-Muslims had the right to engage in such religious practices if it offended Muslims, under the conditions that such cases not be presented to Islamic Sharia courts and that these religious minorities believed that the practice in question is permissible according to their religion. Despite Dhimmis enjoying special statuses under the Caliphates, they were not considered equals, sporadic persecutions of non-Muslim groups did occur in the history of the Caliphates. Ancient Jews fleeing from persecution in their homeland 2,500 years ago settled in India and never faced anti-Semitism. Freedom of religion edicts have been found written during Ashoka the Great's reign in the 3rd century BC. Freedom to practise and propagate any religion is a constitutional right in Modern India. Most major religious festivals of the main communities are included in
Secularism, as defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is the "indifference to, or rejection or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations." As a philosophy, secularism seeks to interpret life on principles taken from the material world, without recourse to religion. In political terms, secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institution and religious dignitaries. Under a brief definition, secularism means that governments should remain neutral on the matter of religion and should not enforce nor prohibit the free exercise of religion, leaving religious choice to the liberty of the people. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs or practices.
Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Zeno of Citium and Marcus Aurelius. It shifts the focus from religion to other ‘temporal’ and ‘this-worldly’ things with emphasis on nature, reason and development; the purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward modernization, away from traditional religious values; this type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion and the religious from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent. On the other hand, Meiji era Japan maintained that it was secular and allowed freedom of religion despite enforcing State Shinto and continuing to prohibit certain "superstitions; the term "secularism" was first used by the British writer George Jacob Holyoake in 1851.
Holyoake invented the term secularism to describe his views of promoting a social order separate from religion, without dismissing or criticizing religious belief. An agnostic himself, Holyoake argued that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it, it does not question the pretensions of Christianity. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge, founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."Barry Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture breaks modern secularism into two types: hard and soft secularism. According to Kosmin, "the hard secularist considers religious propositions to be epistemologically illegitimate, warranted by neither reason nor experience."
However, in the view of soft secularism, "the attainment of absolute truth was impossible and therefore skepticism and tolerance should be the principle and overriding values in the discussion of science and religion." The departure from reliance on religious faith to reason and science marks the beginning of the secularization of education and society in history. Among the earliest documentations of a secular form of thought is seen in the Charvaka system of philosophy, which held direct perception and conditional inference as proper sources of knowledge, sought to reject the prevailing religious practices of that time. According to Domenic Marbaniang, Secularism emerged in the West with the establishment of reason over religious faith as human reason was liberated from unquestioned subjection to the dominion of religion and superstition. Secularism first appeared in the West in the classical philosophy and politics of ancient Greece, disappeared for a time after the fall of Greece, but resurfaced after a millennium and half in the Renaissance and the Reformation.
He writes: An increasing confidence in human capabilities and progress, that emerged during the Italian Renaissance, together with an increasing distrust in organized and state supported religion during the Reformation, was responsible for the ushering of modernity during the Enlightenment, which brought all facets of human life including religion under the purview of reason and thus became responsible for the freeing of education and state from the domination of religion. Harvey Cox explains that the Enlightenment hailed Nature as the "deep reality" that transcended the corrupted man-made institutions of men; the rights of man were not considered as God-given but as the de facto benefits of Nature as revealed by Reason. In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of government; this can refer to reducing ties between a government and a sta
Left-libertarianism known as left-wing libertarianism, names several related yet distinct approaches to political and social theory which stress both individual freedom and social equality. In its classical usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as libertarian socialism which includes anarchism and libertarian Marxism among others. Left-libertarianism can refer to political positions associated with academic philosophers Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. While maintaining full respect for personal property, left-libertarians are skeptical of or against private ownership of natural resources, arguing in contrast to right-libertarians that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights and maintain that natural resources should be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.
Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under occupation and use property norms or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or global community. On the other hand, left-wing market anarchism, including Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Samuel Edward Konkin III's agorism, appeals to left-wing concerns such as egalitarianism and sexuality, class and environmentalism within the paradigm of a socialist free market. In the United States, the word libertarian has become associated with right-libertarianism after Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s. However, political usage of the word until was associated with anti-capitalism and social anarchism and in most parts of the world such an association still predominates. Traditionally, libertarianism was a term for a form of left-wing politics, used as a synonym for anarchism and libertarian socialism since the mid- to late 19th century; the term left-libertarian has been used to refer to a variety of different political economic philosophies emphasizing individual liberty.
With the modern development of right-libertarian ideologies, such as minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, co-opting the term in the mid-20th century to instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land and natural resources, the term left-libertarianism has been used more as to differentiate between the two forms. According to one textbook definition: The term "left-libertanism" has at least three meanings. In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular, it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism with an implication of sympathies not shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. While all libertarians begin with a conception of personal autonomy from which they argue in favor of civil liberties and a reduction or elimination of the state, left-libertarianism encompasses those libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.
Contemporary left-libertarians such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Philippe Van Parijs, Michael Otsuka and David Ellerman believe the appropriation of land must leave "enough and as good" for others or be taxed by society to compensate for the exclusionary effects of private property. Libertarian socialists promote usufruct and socialist economic theories, including communism, collectivism and mutualism, they criticize the state for being the defender of private property and believe capitalism entails wage slavery. Anarchism envisages freedom as a form of autonomy which Paul Goodman describes as "the ability to initiate a task and do it one's own way, without orders from authorities who do not know the actual problem and the available means". All anarchists oppose political and legal authority, but collectivist strains oppose the economic authority of private property; these social anarchists emphasize mutual aid whereas individualist anarchists extol individual sovereignty. Libertarians have been advocates and activists of civil liberties, including free love and free thought.
Advocates of free love viewed sexual freedom as a clear, direct expression of individual sovereignty and they stressed women's rights as most sexual laws discriminated against women: for example, marriage laws and anti-birth control measures. Free love appeared alongside advocacy of LGBT rights. Anarcha-feminism developed as a synthesis of radical feminism and anarchism and views patriarchy as a fundamental manifestation of compulsory government, it was inspired by the late-19th-century writings of early feminist anarchists such as Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman, Voltairine de Cleyre and Virginia Bolten. Anarcha-feminists, like other radical feminists and advocate the abolition of traditional conceptions of family and gender roles. Free Society was an anarchist newspaper in the United States that staunchly advocated free love and women's rights
Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism. While it is most associated with such ideas, the defining features of neoliberalism in both thought and practice has been the subject of substantial scholarly discourse; these ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980. English-speakers have used the term "neoliberalism" since the start of the 20th century with different meanings, but it became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s, used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences as well as by critics. Modern advocates of free market policies avoid the term "neoliberal" and some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people as neoliberalism "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.
As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other concepts that have contested meanings, including democracy. The definition and usage of the term have changed over time; as an economic philosophy, neoliberalism emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s as they attempted to trace a so-called "third" or "middle" way between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning. The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which neoliberals blamed on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term "neoliberal" tended to refer to theories which diverged from the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism and which promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy. In the 1960s, usage of the term "neoliberal" declined; when the term re-appeared in the 1980s in connection with Augusto Pinochet's economic reforms in Chile, the usage of the term had shifted.
It had not only become a term with negative connotations employed principally by critics of market reform, but it had shifted in meaning from a moderate form of liberalism to a more radical and laissez-faire capitalist set of ideas. Scholars now tended to associate it with the theories of Mont Pelerin Society economists Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan. Once the new meaning of neoliberalism became established as a common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy. By 1994, with the passage of NAFTA and with the Zapatistas' reaction to this development in Chiapas, the term entered global circulation. Scholarship on the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been growing over the last couple of decades. An early use of the term in English was in 1898 by the French economist Charles Gide to describe the economic beliefs of the Italian economist Maffeo Pantaleoni, with the term "néo-libéralisme" existing in French, the term was used by others including the classical liberal economist Milton Friedman in a 1951 essay.
In 1938 at the Colloque Walter Lippmann, the term "neoliberalism" was proposed, among other terms, chosen to be used to describe a certain set of economic beliefs. The colloquium defined the concept of neoliberalism as involving "the priority of the price mechanism, free enterprise, the system of competition, a strong and impartial state". To be "neoliberal" meant advocating a modern economic policy with state intervention. Neoliberal state interventionism brought a clash with the opposing laissez-faire camp of classical liberals, like Ludwig von Mises. Most scholars in the 1950s and 1960s understood neoliberalism as referring to the social market economy and its principal economic theorists such as Eucken, Röpke, Rüstow and Müller-Armack. Although Hayek had intellectual ties to the German neoliberals, his name was only mentioned in conjunction with neoliberalism during this period due to his more pro-free market stance. During the military rule under Augusto Pinochet in Chile, opposition scholars took up the expression to describe the economic reforms implemented there and its proponents.
Once this new meaning was established among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy. According to one study of 148 scholarly articles, neoliberalism is never defined but used in several senses to describe ideology, economic theory, development theory, or economic reform policy, it has become a term of condemnation employed by critics and suggests a market fundamentalism closer to the laissez-faire principles of the paleoliberals than to the ideas of those who attended the colloquium. This leaves some controversy as to the precise meaning of the term and its usefulness as a descriptor in the social sciences as the number of different kinds of market economies have proliferated in recent years. Another center-left movement from modern American liberalism that used the term "neoliberalism" to describe its ideology formed in the United States in the 1970s. According to David Brooks, prominent neoliberal politicians included Al Gore and Bill Clinton of the Democratic Party of the United States.
The neoliberals coalesced around The New Republic and the Washington Monthly. The "godfather" of this
Separation of church and state
The separation of church and state is a philosophic and jurisprudential concept for defining political distance in the relationship between religious organizations and the nation state. Conceptually, the term refers to the creation of a secular state and to disestablishment, the changing of an existing, formal relationship between the church and the state. In a society, the degree of political separation between the church and the civil state is determined by the legal structures and prevalent legal views that define the proper relationship between organized religion and the state; the arm's length principle proposes a relationship wherein the two political entities interact as organizations independent of the authority of the other. The strict application of secular principle of laïcité is used in France, while secular societies, such as Denmark and the United Kingdom, maintain a form of constitutional recognition of an official state religion; the philosophy of the separation of the church from the civil state parallels the philosophies of secularism, disestablishmentarianism, religious liberty, religious pluralism, by way of which the European states assumed some of the social roles of the church, the welfare state, a social shift that produced a culturally secular population and public sphere.
In practice, church–state separation varies from total separation, mandated by the country's political constitution, as in India and Singapore, to a state religion, as in the Maldives. An important contributor to the discussion concerning the proper relationship between Church and state was St. Augustine, who in The City of God, Book XIX, Chapter 17, examined the ideal relationship between the "earthly city" and the "city of God". In this work, Augustine posited that major points of overlap were to be found between the "earthly city" and the "city of God" as people need to live together and get along on earth. Thus, Augustine held that it was the work of the "temporal city" to make it possible for a "heavenly city" to be established on earth. For centuries, monarchs ruled by the idea of divine right. Sometimes this began to be used by a monarch to support the notion that the king ruled both his own kingdom and Church within its boundaries, a theory known as caesaropapism. On the other side was the Catholic doctrine that the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on earth, should have the ultimate authority over the Church, indirectly over the state.
Moreover, throughout the Middle Ages the Pope claimed the right to depose the Catholic kings of Western Europe and tried to exercise it, sometimes sometimes not, such as was the case with Henry VIII of England and Henry III of Navarre. In the West the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere; this unresolved contradiction in ultimate control of the Church led to power struggles and crises of leadership, notably in the Investiture Controversy, resolved in the Concordat of Worms in 1122. By this concordat, the Emperor renounced the right to invest ecclesiastics with ring and crosier, the symbols of their spiritual power, guaranteed election by the canons of cathedral or abbey and free consecration. At the beginning of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther articulated a doctrine of the two kingdoms. According to James Madison one of the most important modern proponents of the separation of church and state, Luther's doctrine of the two kingdoms marked the beginning of the modern conception of separation of church and state.
Those of the Radical Reformation took Luther's ideas in new direction, most notably in the writings of Michael Sattler, who agreed with Luther that there were two kingdoms, but differed in arguing that these two kingdoms should be separate, hence baptized believers should not vote, serve in public office or participate in any other way with the "kingdom of the world." While there was a diversity of views in the early days of the Radical Reformation, in time Sattler's perspective became the normative position for most Anabaptists in the coming centuries. Anabaptists came to teach that religion should never be compelled by state power, approaching the issue of church-state relations from the position of protecting the church from the state. In the 1530s, Henry VIII, angered by the Pope Clement VII's refusal to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, decided to break with the Church and set himself as ruler of the Church of England; the monarchs of Great Britain have retained ecclesiastical authority in the Church of England since Henry VIII, having the current title, Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
England's ecclesiastical intermixing did not spread however, due to the extensive persecution of Catholics that resulted from Henry's power grab. This led to Nonconformism, English Dissenters, the anti-Catholicism of Oliver Cromwell, the Commonwealth of England, the Penal Laws against Catholics and others who did not adhere to the Church of England. One of the results of the persecution in England was that some people fled Great Britain to be able to worship as they wished – but they did not seek religious freedom, early North American colonies were as intolerant of religious dissent as England; some of these people voluntarily sailed to the American Colonies for this purpose. After the American Colonies famously revolted against George III of the United Kingdom, the Constitution of United States was amended to ban the establishment of