1

Constitutions characteristically have an impact on how state authorities and religious institutions

relate. In several instances, to a certain degree, the constitution makes a foundation and provides a

structure under which the correlation between religious institutions and political system legally. Even the

protection impartiality and the secular nature of the state is as viewed by the religious institutions is

envisaged other constitutions. A majority, of people all over the world believe that identity by religious

affiliation is fundamental element of national and social identification ; and to some extent recognized by

the constitution. Aspiration to grant defense for diverse nature of religion in some cases is a factor to

consider in the structuring of the constitution to create room for the legal rights of the religious

institutions and affiliations. However, in pursuant to recognition of religious institutions’ rights has

conspicuously detrimental effects on the legal frame work of the constitutions.

For many people around the world, religious identification is an fundamental element of

their communal and national identity, which some may seek to express through constitutional

recognition. A aspiration to acknowledge and defend religious diversity in a society may also

incline constitutional designers to give special recognition to various religious groups. Religious

recognition or institutional establishment, religious privileges or religious law may, however,

have damaging effects on the rights of religious minorities, dissenters and people without

religion. It may also increase tensions between an ‘in group’ and an ‘out group’

In secular democracies, government does not play any role in regards to religion.

However, it is also true that governmental functions are discharged by human beings. Perhaps, it

would be more practical to ask if “religion plays any role in the actions of those who are

responsible for governmental responsibilities.” I believe it does in most cases. Political

secularism, he says, recognizes the legitimacy and even moral necessity of religious faith, while

preventing any one faith from being established. Philosophical secularism, on the other hand,
 2

views religion more negatively and attempts to establish a common unbelief as a basis for

government. Inspired by a recent trip to Turkey, McClay contends that the first understanding of

secularism was at the heart of the founders’ vision and has resulted in a unique if imperfect

mingling of religion and government in American public life.

All religions concentrate on two aspects of human life. First, they describe our

relationship with our Creator and prescribe certain forms of worship to strengthen this

relationship. Secondly, all religions describe our relationship with those around us, especially

with other human beings and specify a set of moral and ethical values. Notwithstanding their

doctrinal differences, the major religions of the world share a vast common ground in this

respect.

Any action — social, economic or political — that has an impact on the welfare of

human beings has an ethical or moral dimension. All leaders in the national, political, social or

diplomatic

fields, even whose who profess no religion, base their views on their value judgments.

Religion is, par excellence, a set of moral values and cannot divorce itself from human welfare.

We find that even the religions that have historically differentiated between the mundane

and the holy and maintained a strict position of neutrality in the so-called “political” realm are

now active in world affairs far beyond their traditional role and often beyond their own faith

community. Recent examples include universal condemnation of terrorism, efforts to ban the

anti-personnel mines and attempts to have the debt of poor countries remitted. For these actions,

they gain respect around the world.

2. The government has an important role in guaranteeing the universal right to freedom of

religion.These issues and concerns are not religious; they are also political and social. I believe
 3

no government can escape taking a stand about them. Even if religion is not brought into picture

— and it should not be — the governmental policy will have to have a moral and ethical base to

gain popular sport.

At the Second Vatican Council, on Dec. 7, 1965, the Catholic Church published an

important document on the basic human right to freedom of religion: “Dignitatis Humanae: The

Declaration on Religious Freedom on the Right of the Person and Communities to Social and

Civil Freedom in Matters Religious.” This important document promoted a person’s right to

freedom of religion, free from coercion of any kind, and recognized the important role that

governments have in guaranteeing this right for their citizens.

In the opening section, the document teaches: “The demand is likewise made that

constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no

encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for

freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit.”

(Dignitatis Humanae, n. 1)

The Council recognized that in some countries the government may pay lip service to

freedom of religion, but in practice it does not guarantee this right, or the government even deters

citizens from practising their faith.

Almost 50 years ago, the Catholic Church taught in the conclusion of the “Declaration on

Religious Freedom”: “…in order that relationships of peace and harmony be established and

maintained within the whole of mankind, it is necessary that religious freedom be everywhere

provided with an effective constitutional guarantee and that respect be shown for the high duty

and right of man freely to lead his religious life in society.” (Dignitatis Humanae, n. 15)
 4

Today, there are regimes in the world where there is no separation of church and state

and the government does not guarantee the right to freedom of religion for its citizens.

Most constitutional design processes will have to consider the problem of religion–state

relations. There are particularly important constitutional designs associated with Muslim-

majority countries, religiously diverse societies and societies where there have historically been

tensions between religious and secular authorities.

Regulating the relationship between the state and religion, between civil and religious

authorities, and between secular and sacred codes of law, has historically been, and continues to

be, one of the main functions of a constitution. Another important function of a constitution is to

ensure peace and justice between all members of society, even in societies that are marked by

deep religious divisions. Yet, in many parts of the world, the relationship between the state and

religion continues to be one of the most difficult issues for constitution-builders to resolve. The

specific problems are unique to each case, but certain generalities often emerge. A particular

religion may be associated with national identity or with the foundational values of the

community. Public opinion may be expressed through parties that are motivated by, or identified

with, a particular religion.

In principle, constitution-makers can choose from a wide variety of constitutional

options, ranging from the establishment of a particular state religion (with the incorporation of

that

religion’s moral norms into law, the recognition of religious courts in certain areas of

jurisdiction and the establishment of state-funded clergy or religious institutions), through the

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he

owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government
 5

reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole

American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of

separation between Church and State. —Thomas Jefferson, fourth President of the United States

(1802).