The FVS promotes the separation of state and churches. Religious groups should - same as other philosophical communities - stand up to open competition of philosophies and opinions, without being privileged by the state.

The separation of state and churches is both a current condition and a process. But the separation of state and churches is also an ongoing process consisting of gradually reducing the existing links between state and churches. Already during the previous century, the separation in civil processes was completed. We freethinkers appreciate and support this development.

The separation of state and churches means in particular:

• Abolish financial support of churches with public funds
• Abolish the collection of church taxes by the state
• No religious instruction by and in state schools
• Remove religious symbols in state environments

The FVS does not deny that the churches are to some extent delivering social services. If and to what extent the state should delegate social services to non-state organisations, and subsidise them accordingly, is a question of policy and expediency on which the FVS does not offer an opinion. Under a separation of state and churches, religious groups could compete with private organisations for the right to deliver such services and be compensated accordingly.

The FVS is aware that our culture, same as every other culture, has been shaped over the centuries by the then prevalent religions. In this way artists frequently chose religious elements as the objects of their creativity. This shaped out cultural inheritance. It would be senseless and barbarous to erase these religious traces from our cultural inheritance. We are not iconoclasts.

The separation of state and churches also means freedom for the churches. Following the separation, the churches would be free to express their philosophy without being hindered by considerations and ties to the state. We freethinkers recognise the right of any group to express its opinion on social and religious topics, based on its philosophy. Such expressions of opinions require an independence from the state. Separating state and churches implies equal rights between religious groupings. We cannot understand why, in this day and age of ecumenical Christianity, some Christian churches can lay claim on privileges that are not granted to other Christian or non-Christian religious communities.

Churches frequently cite historical legal claims on previous holdings that were secularised during the reformation. We freethinkers strongly reject such arguments. It is incomprehensible why the churches should lay claim on some feudal rights from the middle ages. Compensating churches for feudal rights is as absurd as compensating nobility or town patricians. Some rights and claims have been superseded by historical developments. These days, nobody demands compensation for the human rights violations committed by the churches in the past.

The separation of state and churches must be implemented in a manner that is socially acceptable. We consider appropriate transition periods and and transition agreements to be entirely acceptable. We do not demand punitive action but we demand justice and equal rights.

The separation of state and churches is an additional barrier against fundamentalist trends. The current ties between state and churches delivers to certain fundamentalist groups a fake entitlement for their demand to include religious norms and moral opinions in the law-making process.

 

In recent times even conservative political groupings have demanded the separation of state and churches. They do this in response to some church spokespeople issueing statements that did not suit them. For the political right wing, the demand to separate state and churches is a threat against churches that do not toe the line. The freethinkers demand the separation of state and churches independently from the daily happenings. On the other hand we have no reservations of supporting other groupings with their separation demand, independent of their motivation. In such disputes the FVS will forcefully put forward its own arguments that are based on its humanistic and liberal philosophy. It will not support arguments that are incompatible with its own philosophy.

Passed by the FVS's Delegate Meeting on 26th April 1992.

Confederation

According to the federal constitution, the relationship between state and churches comes under the jurisdiction of the cantons. But even at a federal level, secularism is not fully implemented. Further to the preamble in the constitution we also find in the so-called "Swiss Psalm" evocations of the Christian God, and in the 21st century the name of a god is embossed in the 5-franc coin. After removing a few antiquated customs from the constitution in 1991, a new religion-specific rule, the Ban on Minarets, has since sneaked in. In addition, some motions demand a constitutional protection of the crucifix etc.

Parties

Apart from the Pirate Party which is active in several cantons and which included secularism in its party program with some clear demands, the new list of people without confession in the canton Zurich intends to take the matter to the National Council. The SP's party program has stated since 2010: "Since Enlightenment, human rights form the basis of our society. The SP contrasts irrationalism and religious fundamentalism with the model of a pluralistic society in a secular state that is based on the dignity and freedom of individuals and that demands respect of human rights. The state and the public education system must observe strict neutrality towards all religions, refrain from formulating rules for the "correct" faith and avoid the display of religious symbols in public buildings and schools." However, this is unlikely to influence the friendly attitude that the party's representatives display in parliament towards the established churches.

Cantons

Legal texts for the cantons

on the web page of the University Fribourg:

http://www.unifr.ch/ius/religionsrecht_de/dienstleistungen/rechtssammlung/kantone