Lably
Skip to content

Confessional state

State which officially practices a particular religion

  • 5 min read
  • 6 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Public, Ritual and Government spending

Over human history, many states have been confessional states. This is especially true in countries where Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism were the religions of the state. Until the beginning of the 20th century, many if not most nations had state religions enshrined in their respective constitutions or by decree of the monarch, even if other religions were permitted to practice.

However, there are many examples of large multicultural empires that have existed throughout time where the religion of the state was not imposed on subjected regions. For instance, the Mongol Empire, where Tengrism was the religion of the court, but not imposed on those ruled by the Mongols, the Achaemenid Empire and the Roman Empire before Constantine I, where regional clergies and practices were allowed to dominate as long as offerings were made to Roman Gods and tribute paid to Rome.

Religious minorities are accorded differing degrees of tolerance under confessional states; adherents may or may not have a set of legal rights, and these rights may not be accessible in practice. For example, in medieval Europe Jewish people suffered various degrees of official and unofficial discrimination; during the same period in Islamic states, non-Muslims or dhimmi were legally inferior to Muslims but in theory accorded certain protections.

In Europe, the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia institutionalized the principle of cuius regio, eius religio—that rulers of a state had the right to determine the religion of its subjects. This was in an effort to curb the religious warfare that had wracked Europe after the Protestant Reformation.

Tensions based on inclusiveness in religious nationalism

In a 2002 Journal of Ecumenical Studies article, Practice in Religion, Ethnicity, and International Conflict Harvard Divinity School professor David Little identified "ethnic and religious" inclusiveness in religious nationalism causing tensions as well as shifts from ethnic to civic nationalism. He evaluated the religious nationalism of Christianity, with nationalism as "may [be understood] as the impulse of an ethnic group to claim the right to participate in the government of a given territory", presumably also manifesting in the form of state-level religious affiliation, and religious nationalism as "may mean the impulse of the group in question to invoke a religious warrant for its claim to such a right." Subscribing to "the literature [that it] is divided into two basic types: 'ethnic' and 'civic'", accepting that "religious people do perform [giving religious reasons for ethnocratic rule], thus contributing, it would appear, to the violence that so often attends one ethnic group's drive for political domination", Little nonetheless concludes that "throughout the course of Christian history" that in response to "Christians [that] advocate one or another version of ethnocratic rule", "[...] there are strong [Christian] dissenting voices that are dedicated to promoting ethnic and religious inclusiveness based on tolerance and equality in the civic order."

A danger from religious nationalism is that when the state derives political legitimacy from adherence to religious doctrines, this may leave an opening to overtly religious elements, institutions, and leaders, making the appeals to religion more 'authentic' by bringing more explicitly theological interpretations to political life. Thus, appeals to religion as a marker of ethnicity create an opening for more strident and ideological interpretations of religious nationalism.

Sign in to keep reading

5 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Social studies