State Neutrality

O'Halloran provides a comparative evaluation of contemporary law as it relates to religion in six developed nations.

Originally published in 1988, this book examines the experiences of neutral states in Europe during the Second World War and in the postwar peiod. It examines both the practical and the theoretical considerations and the interface between the two, and discusses the implications of the experience of these countries for small states generally

This book focuses on the financing of religions, examining some European church-state models, using a philosophical methodology. The work defends autonomy-based liberalism and elaborates how this liberalism can meet the requirements of liberal neutrality. The chapters also explore religious education and the financing of institutionalized religion. This volume collates the work of top scholars in the field. Starting from the idea that autonomy-based liberalism is an adequate framework for the requirement of liberal neutrality, the author elaborates why a liberal state can support religions and how she should do this, without violating the principle of neutrality. Taking into account the principle of religious freedom and the separation of church and state, this work explores which criteria the state should take into account when she actively supports religions, faith-based schools and religious education. A number of concrete church-state models, including hands-off, religious accommodation and the state church are evaluated, and the book gives some recommendations in order to optimize those church-state models, where needed. Practitioners and scholars of politics, law, philosophy and education, especially religious education, will find this work of particular interest as it has useful guidelines on policies and practices, as well as studies of church-state models.

The successful maintenance of peace since 1814 made neutrality a widely popular doctrine in Sweden. Rather than a security policy in the strict sense, it has become a cornerstone of Swedish national identity. Yet, in the past decade the neutrality tradition has been called into question. What is meant by neutrality? Has Sweden ever been neutral? This book analyses the emergence, institutionalisation and reassessment of neutrality, of the notion of peace as a national good, from the sixteenth century to the present debate on NATO membership.

The European Federation of Centers of Research and Information on Sectarianism (FECRIS) unites 25 European organizations to fight against minorities of religion or beliefs that they label as sects. This book focuses on the FECRIS member associations in five European countries: France, the cradle of laicite; Austria and Germany, where public powers and dominant churches lead a common struggle against sects; and Serbia and Russia, two Orthodox countries in which FECRIS member associations include Orthodox missionary departments. Can their activities be reconciled with the public funding granted to FECRIS and its affiliates, as well as the international standards to guarantee freedom of religion and belief? This is the question addressed in this volume. (Series: Religion - State - Society / Religion - Staat - Gesellschaft. Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews)

This comparative analysis of the constitutional law of religion-state relations in the United States and Germany focuses on the principle of state neutrality. A strong emphasis on state neutrality, a notoriously ambiguous concept, is a shared feature in the constitutional jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court, but neutrality does not have the same meaning in both systems. In Germany neutrality tends to indicate more distance between church and state, whereas the opposite is the case in the United States. Neutrality also has other meanings in both systems, making straightforward comparison more difficult than it might seem. Although the underlying trajectory of neutrality is different in both countries, the discussion of neutrality breaks down into largely parallel themes. By examining those themes in a comparative perspective, the meaning of state neutrality in religion-state relations can be delineated.

Although it is often charged with hostility toward religion, First Amendment doctrine in fact treats religion as a distinctive human good. It insists, however, that this good be understood abstractly, without the state taking sides on any theological question. Here, a leading scholar of constitutional law explains the logic of this uniquely American form of neutrality—more religion-centered than liberal theorists propose, and less overtly theistic than conservatives advocate. The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion is under threat. Growing numbers of critics, including a near-majority of the Supreme Court, seem ready to cast aside the ideal of American religious neutrality. Andrew Koppelman defends that ideal and explains why protecting religion from political manipulation is imperative in an America of growing religious diversity. Understanding American religious neutrality, Koppelman shows, can explain some familiar puzzles. How can Bible reading in public schools be impermissible while legislative sessions begin with prayers, Christmas is an official holiday, and the words “under God” appear in the Pledge of Allegiance? Are faith-based social services, public financing of religious schools, or the teaching of intelligent design constitutional? Combining legal, historical, and philosophical analysis, Koppelman shows how law coherently navigates these conundrums. He explains why laws must have a secular legislative purpose, why old, but not new, ceremonial acknowledgments of religion are permitted, and why it is fair to give religion special treatment.

This book brings together a group of international scholars, many of whom have already contributed to the debate on toleration, and who are offering fresh thoughts and approaches to it. The essays of this collection are written from a variety of perspectives: historical, analytical, normative, and legal. Yet, all authors share a concern with the sharpening of our understanding of the reasons for toleration as well as with making them relevant to the way in which we live with others in our modern and diverse societies.