Part II | Outline
Category B | Principles
Topic 5 | Civil sphere versus religious sphere
One of English philosopher John Locke’s key contributions to political theory and our understanding of religious freedom was his categorical demarcation between the civil sphere and the religious sphere, and the importance of setting “the just bounds that lie between the one and the other.” According to Locke, the civil sphere should focus on the “care of the commonwealth” and the religious sphere on “a concernment for the interest of men’s souls.”
Key ideas
- German theologian Martin Luther (1483–1546) called for a separation of religion and state into “two kingdoms.”
In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), Locke outlined five principles undergirding the concept of separate civil and religious spheres. These principles influenced and have been reiterated by U.S. founding figures and modern philosophers.
- 1. Civil power does not extend to the religious sphere.
- 2. Religion is not entitled to assert civil power.
- 3. The state is not competent to ascertain religious truth.
- 4. Plurality is a source of stability.
- 5. There are limits on tolerance (i.e., there is no obligation to tolerate intolerance).
Modern-day articulations
In modern times, both Catholicism and Neo-Calvinism, among other religious traditions, have articulated and been guided by Lockean principles.
- The Second Vatican Council’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae” (1965) marked a new era for the Catholic Church, in officially recognizing the need for separate church-state spheres and the universal right to religious freedom.
- Calvinist theologian Abraham Kuyper expressed his ideas about separation of church and state through the concept of “sphere sovereignty,” which maintained that the church and state are separate spheres that exist side by side but are both accountable to God. Kuyper also advocated for related concepts including limited state authority, state “agnosticism” of neutrality in religious matters, a “free church in a free state,” and parental—rather than state—responsibility for children’s education, which should be shaped by faith.